Talk:M113 armored personnel carrier/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

There is no evidence that the M-113 was ever referred to as the "Gavin" until Mike Sparks began an online campaign to call it that. Also, a General of Airborne troops, as was General Gavin, would not normally have any input in the design of an infantry vehicle.

AAM-PVF - Verified source?

Other than Mike Sparks' sites, I couldn't find anywhere else that alludes to the requirement for an "Airborne Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle Family" (AAM-PVF). Was this really the army requirement or is this term and acronym merely an invention? United Defense's own site does mention that the vehicle is "air transportable, air-droppable, and swimmable" [1] but there was sadly no information about the Army's requirements.

I would not put faith in any words from MS about the M113 at all, can't see how others can. It's an invented term, complete nonsense. Henning 17:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone pointed out that the information can be found in Simon Dunstan, The M113 Series, page 5, Osprey Publishing, London, 1983. I don't have a copy of this book however so I cannot confirm, but it seems likely that that information can be found in the book. The person who posted the information with IP 24.214.9.94 then proceeded to modify a number of articles and replaced all references to the M113 with the term "M113 Gavin", which were of course reverted back to M113. Edward Sandstig 17:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
If one googles "Airborne Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle Family", GAVIN is sprayed all over the screen. If someone finds the term coined in that book, I see no reason for not putting it in the article. How things are now, I feel it is easily discriminated until a reference on the web independent of MS is found. Henning 18:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Just who in the hell is Mike Sparks anyways? Ultratone85 09:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This site answers your question to some extent. --Edward Sandstig 00:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's be fair, why not let people actually read the real site (www.combatreform2.com)? The 2nd Tactical is obviously a loon, but it is clearly not a tactical recommendation site, just a rant/religious site. The 3rd Amphibious is a self-killer anyway. He could have made perfect sense and still die due to his obsession to that ridiculous conspiracy Black Sun book. But as far as 1st Tactical is concerned, I can't even say the critic's attacking a strawman because that would mean he has at least the courage to state the positions he was attacking. Instead, we see a bunch of things allegedly from Sparks. It does look plausible, but exactly what the critic wrote in his alleged E-mail can only be guessed at. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 04:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
How much of what was written on the site I posted untrue? That site's a hell of a lot more honest than him coming here and "anonymously" changing all instances of "M113" to "M113 Gavin" and forcing his POV down everyone's throat. --Edward Sandstig 15:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Lying by omission. Any illusion that Sparks might have been a saint or go-to guy disappears fast after an encounter 3rd Amphibious (I think Sparks knows it too, so it is very hard to find a link from 1st TSG to 3rd ASG in his site). In not writing a person's justifications even in basic form, he's going for rhetorics only. Given adequate distortion in the summary, even the best idea can sound like a bad one. He doesn't even get one of Sparks' main points, which is that there is no such thing as "obsolete" or "not obsolete", only effectiveness. Nor does he get another, which is that wheels don't tend to be too good off road (and Sparks at least went to the effort of finding pictures and vidclips to prove his point). And for all we can tell of the alleged E-mail exchange, "Generic Dad" might have typing in all caps himself. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
He's got links to Sparky's sites, and even the guy's book on Amazon. I did a search for Generic Dad's posts on another forum, and I didn't see anything in the way of overuse of the caps lock key. Btw, you can check one of Sparky's responses to a warning right here on Wikipedia. Sparky has again attempted to make changes to the article using his own page as a reference, how's that for original research? --Edward Sandstig 22:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Linking is no compensation for a completely biased approach. At least Sparks actually tries to find some sources that supports his views. In fact, recent edits seem to have heavily increased the use of direct quoting.
  • The point of the "all caps" thing is that you don't know what happened. Quite frankly, it is very obvious that Sparks feels very strongly about this whole Stryker/M113 thing. If Generic Dad used the general style and content as shown on his webpage, a heated response is hardly unexpected.
  • As for using his own page as a reference, it might be called Original Research here but one can see his point of view. On his page, he did (assuming he didn't type them out of nothing) have a collection of support E-mails from various people and he even managed to (apparently) dig up one DOD letter to back him up. If you ignore perceived reliability for the moment, that's already a superior pile to the one displayed by GlobalSecurity, which is basically "doubts" and one un-named observer (yes, Sparks has a lot of unnamed witnesses on his site as well, but certainly his letter had names). Think: If another guy (say me), did the referencing instead of him (and maybe it really was his friend) then it won't be Original Research anymore. That suggests how crappy an argument this is.
  • For extra fun value, GlobalSecurity actually recognizes the Gavin name (see the title). By the way, like Sparks, the essay is highly opinionated, but unlike Sparks, it has zero references. At least Sparks makes an effort to justify his ideas... Sparks looks like a beacon of reason compared to this. It is at least understandable why Sparks might not like GlobalSecurity being treated as more reliable than himself, at least on this point.
  • Further, I've seen the latest revert (as of this posting) and consider it unjustified given the available information.
  • The "Gavin" thing, maybe justifiable. But the correct procedure in that case is to handle that point, not revert everything.
  • IMO, there is no reason for reverting "heavier, less cross-country mobile" to "modern". How can anyone deny that Bradley and Achzarit are heavier than the M113? As for "less cross country mobile", it is justifiable as a measure of ground pressure and power-to-weight. According to Jane's, M2 Bradley and M113A2 had more or less comparable ground pressure (0.54-0.55kg/cm2) and M2 had slightly better Power-to-Weight, but the M2 then gained about 11 tons (from ~22t-33t), mostly for extra armor by the time it got to the A3 variant. This means a 50% increase in ground pressure and a 33% decrease in T/W ratio. The Achzarit is a modified T-55, with comparable T/W, but as a T-55, and of comparable weight, its ground pressure is higher, about 0.8-0.9kg/cm2 or so.
  • The other complaints seem to be "supplement" vs "replace". Again, the provided facts are not on the side of the reverter. There are supposedly 4000 M113s in Germany. Between the Dingo and the Boxer, Germany is buying less than 800 vehicles (see the respective pages on Wikipedia). The idea of 800 vehicles being able to supplant 4000 M113s sounds truly suspect. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 18:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
"heaver, less cross-country mobile" is a loaded statement and is POV. That alone means that it should be reverted. Modern is NPOV and does not hint at what is "better." As for the Bundeswehr issues, you're citing wikipedia as the source. Not good enough for me. I want to see a verifiable source that supports the claims. EDIT: Put the operator info back in, but I still want a source. With regards to everything else, the Gavin comments and those about mobility are clearly POV. -- Thatguy96 19:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How is "modern" not a loaded statement? You yourself already automatically associated "modern" with "better" in the statement above. It implies that protection goes up in a high correlation with modernity, which is not true. The BMP-1 and Marder are contemporaries, yet one is much more heavily armored than the other. In fact, the Marder is probably better armored than the first M2s (being some 10 tons heavier).
  • I used Wiki because it was fast and in trust of good faith of the respective pages' writers. Besides, an important part of an encyclopedia is that it is self-consistent and appears as such. The encyclopedia should also be generally reliable, and personally I cry at the state of Wiki when even on a Talk page, the encyclopedia's own pages are considered untrustworthy... --Kazuaki Shimazaki 02:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You can't complain about him criticizing Sparks, since that's what the page is about. You had initially complained about him not providing links, but clearly there are links to Sparks' own site and even to the page for his book on Amazon. Are there any links on any of Sparks' sites to other pages with a dissenting opinion? Who's to say that the DoD letter wasn't baited? When Joseph Schmitz received the letter from Congressman Platts' office saying "Gavin M113 Armored Personnel Carrier" it would seem common courtesy to respond using the same name used in the original letter. You probably should also note that Schmidt's background is in the U.S. Navy, which means he could have been unfamiliar with the vehicle's real name. With regard to the Bundeswehr, then I guess you and Sparks know better than the German Army? You can read about it on their own site. The fact that the Bundeswehr has gone down from 12 divisions during the cold war to less than half that should have been enough of a clue that they're not looking for a 1:1 replacement. --Edward Sandstig 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It is fine for him to criticize Sparks. But there are reasoned complaints and unreasoned ones. His page, heavier on ad hominems and cherry-picked out of context statements than backup evidence, is improper.
  • When I wrote "why not let people actually read the real site (www.combatreform2.com)", I was talking to you.
  • Our friend Schmitz could also just have written "M113", since as you've just seen, writing something on an official paper potentially gives it official status.
  • Unless Google's autotranslator is screwing me, Boxers are only going to "partly the transportation tank fox and the crew carriage M 113 replace". Besides, I would guess the M113 count on this page was for the present, not the end of the Cold War. Further, even if 4000 was the Cold War count, half of that still leaves 2000, which is too many for a mere <800 vehicles to completely replace. Under the circumstances, I'd argue "supplement" (which implies to me that the two vehicles will work together) gives a more correct picture of what's happening than "replace" (which implies no M113s will be present in the Bundeswehr in the future). --Kazuaki Shimazaki 02:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Your other page mentions a requirement for "1000-1500" Dingo-like vehicles, but they are only buying (see Page 43) all of 402 by 2011. Clearly the numbers don't match. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 03:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Circa 1,200 vehicles to replace less than 2,000 M113s doesn't sound too far off. Remember that the Heer consisted of 4 Panzer Grenadier divisions (Mech Infantry), 6 Panzer divisions (Armour), 1 Gebirgsjäger Division (Alpine) and three Fallschirmsjäger brigades (Para), plus multiple independent armoured units and corps assets during the Cold War. The M113s were mostly utilized in support roles such as command & control, communications and logistics. By 2008, Germany's armoured forces will consist of only two armoured divisions and one mechanized division. You should also note that Germany only plans on getting 410 Pumas to replace around 2,000 Marders. --Edward Sandstig 11:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • My inability to decode German must be screwing me. Where did this 1200 number pop up. As I understand it, they have a requirement for 1000-1500, to be met SOMEDAY, and they only have plans for a few hundred in the planned out future.
  • Less than 800 Boxer MRAVs plus 402 Dingos = around 1200 vehicles. Fact is, I've already presented a source from the Bundeswehr that says that the Boxer MRAV will at least be partially replacing the M113. I've also provided another source from KMW about the Dingo being used to replace the M113. Can you provide a source that specifically states that the Puma and Boxer are meant to supplement the M113? --Edward Sandstig 08:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I said 800 vehicles. That's the Dingos and the Boxers put together, not just the Boxers. At this point, I wonder whether our bone is in a difference of language interpretation. To me, if they are only replacing some of the M113s, they are only taking over from some roles (presumably roles that can be done while very roadbound, because a 36-ton wheeled vehicle's prospects on anything other than a paved road generally looks bleak - matter of ground pressure), they are supplementing, not replacing. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 11:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, you win. I was about to ask you why there are no M113s in Divisional and Corps/Army level units or why there are only 5 brigades (14 Bns) for 3 divisions. Then I saw the depressing diagram. What kind of division only has TWO maneuver brigades (and zero divisional combat units!) and what kind of brigade only has TWO maneuver battalions?!!!!! --Kazuaki Shimazaki 01:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yet even by the year 2011, they still plan to have 538 Marders. It is likely 410 Pumas could replace them all. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Did you mean to say unlikely or are you actually agreeing with me? --Edward Sandstig 08:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
First, don't treat the idea that we might actually agree on a point as unusual. But yes, I meant "unlikely", unless the divisions's infantry component is to be significantly reduced as well. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 11:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Got a PM from Generic Dad, and he said I could freely pass this along --Edward Sandstig 11:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not even clear whether this is relevant to our current discussion. To avoid wasting more precious space that should go to discussing M113s or even whether they should be called Gavins rather than discussing Mike Sparks, I'd rebutt this paragraph on my own User:Kazuaki Shimazaki page. ==Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that a small but increasing number of people are starting to call the M113 the "Gavin", but I would submit this is entirely due to the efforts of Mr. Sparks to promote his aggenda of massed divisions of M113's being dropped out of the backs of airplanes as the solution to all military problems. Nobody, but nobody called the M113 the Gavin before Mr. Sparks proposed the idea in Armor Magazine a decade ago and nobody would be doing it today either except for the fact that you can't look up M113 on Google without at least half of the first 10 hits being to one of Mr. Sparks web pages. To the casual observer researching the subject it would certainly appear that the Gavin name is appropriate, when in fact it is just the fantasy of one overly enthusiastic individual. This however, does not change the fact that the company that builds the M113 has never called it the Gavin. You can't find any reference to the Gavin name in any book ever written about the vehicle or its combat history that didn't involve Mr. Sparks. No U.S. Army document referring to the M113 as the Gavin has ever been made public. The soldiers that ride to war in them (excepting a few who Google'd "M113" perhaps) don't call it the Gavin either.

Mr. Sparks is of course free to persue his crusade of massed armies of aluminum boxes being dropped out the back of airplanes. In doing so however he also rightfully opens himself up to questions and criticisms about his methods, motivations and tactics, as well as the details of his own very suspect "military career." If we are going to let this guy name our vehicles, we should know who he is and what he is really up to, don't you think? And for the record, Mr. Sparks is long past the idea that the name is unofficial. He made a complaint here to Wikipedia recently claiming that everyone calls the M113 the Gavin and they should remove anything from their page on the vehicle that says differently.

I have accused Mr. Sparks of a number of things on my Anti-Gavin web page. Those accusations are all, to the best of my knowledge, 100% true and can be verified to anyone who wants additional details. My contact information is at the bottom of the page. Anyone who has ever dealt with Mr. Sparks, either through one of the many internet discussion boards he has been banned from or through personal communication needs no further proof.

For the record, I sent Mr. Sparks the link for my page the day it went up requesting his opinion/rebuttal. He never replied. The page has also been edited/revised several times to correct factual errors, a process that is always ongoing. I do take accuracy quite seriously.

PS

The use of THE CAPS LOCK on the web page I created devoted to this subject was 100% intentional and totally tongue-in-cheek. Some people really need a sense of humor.

Mark Fitzpatrick (AKA genericdad)

Obviously, Sparks has more official documents showing DoD and Army use of the "Gavin" name and is in a campaign to get it "official"; again Wiki's use of words like "never" and "none" are not justified, his organization is gaining "traction" if you pardon my pun. "Gavin" is the nickname for enlightened persons talking about the M113 as its a powerful reminder that its intended purpose is for light infantry to have all terrain, air-transportable armored mobility and firepower. Wiki lacks an easy to post means to show documents like on the German Army's Puma tracked infantry fighting vehicle for example to show that statements like a few hundred wheeled vehicles being bought does not constitute a replacement for thousands of M113s. When Wiki doesn't even factor in the Puma the thoroughness of its facts are shown to be faulty.24.214.146.99 20:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, if Spark's has these documents I want to see them. I have seen nothing. I have not even heard their titles mentioned, or quotes from them excerpted. That's poor policy in general, and leads me to the obvious conclusion that the documents are either non-existant or that careful scurtiny by those not in agreement with him would show a logical alternate interpretation. Spark's complains about the lack of open debate, yet carefully manages how much of his wealth of information is presented. That's very close to flagrant hypocracy. Other's have provided sources that disagree with your claims. Instead of challanging them with the loads of material you claim to have access to, you choose to use a single rhetorical arguement that we are wrong because you say so. Furthermore, your ending comments here constitute a personal opinion on the matter of the Puma, and official Bundeswehr sources contradict your claims about what consitutes a replacement. That you don't agree with their decisions or course of action, or that you believe in the superiority of one system over another is irrelevant here. -- Thatguy96 20:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, from the "document" provided, it appears that the officer who wrote it was merely quoting the "electronic mail" from Mr. Bruce Shrader. Without that electronic mail I can logically say this might be the case. This is especially seeing as there is no additional mention of the system anywhere else than in the first paragraph which is a summary of this electronic mail. Furthermore, few of his "thousands of military supporters" quoted below make actual reference to calling the system "Gavin" as he suggests, and no names are actually given for any of them. Even testimonials for fake "generic viagra" that I get as spam mail have made up names and positions. I find it odd that Sparks has none. -- Thatguy96 14:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The Puma is an IFV meant to replace the Marder.source I find it somewhat suspicious that the IP address 24.214.146.99 (talk · contribs) is now using a more reasonable tone, more akin to Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk · contribs) who has consistently been defending Sparks. Do I smell a sock puppet? --Edward Sandstig 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to make it clear, look at my contributions record. Yes, there were quite a few on Strykers, but also on other topics, and over a period of years. I must be among the longest lasting sock-puppets in history if that were the case. I also find it sad that your first reaction to anyone who happens to have views partially coinciding with Sparks is to think of him as a sock puppet. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 02:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
My apologies in case I insulted you, but this was the first time the thought crossed my mind since your contributions seemed to coincide with Sparks' time of activity. I will admit that save for that single post where he didn't resort to rhetorics, your writing style has proven calmer. --Edward Sandstig 11:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The point is not about insults. The point is that I can't allow this accusation to go unchallenged. Not just as a matter of justice, but for continuing to provide an alternate viewpoint here. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 11:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Folks, In case anyone has not noticed Sparks himself is posting under the user ip 24.214.146.99. It kills me how he refers to himself in the 3rd person. By the way. if you ever email this person his replies are highly charged and if you dont agree with him he blocks any further communications and will also call you a narcissist....his favorite word....My father worked on m-113's for 20+ years and states IT HAS NEVER BEEN CALLED THE GAVIN. Its called a "Track" , "M-113" or "green box with tracks". Also it doesnt matter how much armor ehnacement, band tracks, etc you hang off of it the damn thing blows up just as easy as a Bradley or M-1 Abrams. Anything can be blown up with a big enough roadside bomb.Brownt15 17:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy violation

As of 7th July 2005, there appears to be a large splodge of copy viol text in this article, compare with, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm GraemeLeggett 7 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

"Gavin" nickname creation of Mike Sparks

I seem to recall hearing that the 'Gavin' nickname is not one actually used by U.S. servicemen, but promoted by a loon:

http://www.afvnews.ca/cgi-bin/web-bbs/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/65646

[Joel]

Absolutely Incorrect.

Sparks is an U.S. serviceman, a commissioned U.S. Army infantry officer.

Before calling him names look at the Wiki policy on personal attacks and remember to not be hypocritical. He has proof that thousands of U.S. serviceman like himself call M113s "Gavins" as shown on the official petition drive web page: www.geocities.com/gavinpetition. Furthermore, the A-10 is called the "Warthog" by its users and admirers without any USAF official blessing. The main motivations to deny the M113 the respect it deserves as the creation of General Gavin are impure and dishonest; the facts are the M113 was Gavin's creation and that thousands of Soldiers refer to M113s; this linkage does not require every one of the 500,000 or so odd active Army Soldiers or the official organization to bless off on; thus absolutist terms like "never" on Wiki are unjustified. The U.S. Army headquarters or Congress could decide at any moment to "officially" name the M113 the "Gavin" and all the Sparks haters will then be revealed for what they are; people filled with jelousy and envy for not having a good idea and the willingness to pursue it for the common good.24.214.146.99 19:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He claim's to have proof. He claims to have official DOD documentation. You know, I'm a historian by training, and I can tell you that when I make such claims I show people the documents. I haven't even seen so much as a quote from them by Mike Sparks, nor cited anecdotal accounts by him from the hordes of people using the term "Gavin." Web petitions can be signed by anyone, claiming to be anyone, and is irrelevant to the reality anyhow. The Headquarters Department, United States Army, could decide to give it the official name of "Purple-Nurple Clown Transporter" tomorrow too. What would you say to that? They can do what they want. Until they decide to, however, its still false, and to promote such a position here is blatantly in violation of Wikipedia's clear NPOV policies. -- Thatguy96 20:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Sparks has the exact emails sent in to his organization of the thousands of folks who have written in saying "YES" to naming the M113 the "Gavin". He lists their names on the petition web site. Its also clear that there are a bunch of jerks who would send malicious emails to these people if his organization listed their email addresses on the petition drive web site. The last I checked he has an official DoD document where the M113 is referred to as a "Gavin", so Wiki needs to stop using absolutist terms like "never" and "none" when clearly Wiki is not God and the M113's career is far from over and a whole bunch of people call M113s "Gavins". Wiki is open to M113 Gavin enemies, why should supporters post personal petition drive information into the public domain? Wiki needs some "adult supervision", some people who can be emailed directly with confidential documents that will have the personal contact information of those involved respected since redacting that info and posting it on a web site is somehow not good enough for people like Thatguy96 with the sarcastic, mocking statements. Anyone objective can see the remarks on the gavinpetition web site are from different people who have written in by their wording and style. Thatguy96 needs to stop playing lawyer and just be the M113 Gavin foe that he is and accuse Sparks of somehow making up all these petition signers so he will be easily proven wrong, perhaps by the petition list being sent to some sort of Wiki arbitrator or having Thatguy96 offer his email address so Sparks can have all his petition signers email him directly to provide him a "reality check"24.214.146.99 20:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. There was the extremely annoying period of time when this article would keep reverting to when it said "Gavin". Now, I see the name Gavin has ONCE AGAIN been moved into it, more subliminally (sp?). Perhaps to build base for future accusations of "but Wiki says it and there is a clear link"! I remember reading the article on the soldier named Gavin that the chariot was "named" after. HOWEVER, I went to the step of CALLING Pentagon, where from several people, I categorically got the slightest suspicion stomped on and tossed away. THE NAME IS NOT GAVIN. Oh, it feels very good, very good indeed, to be able to say this. 213.161.189.28 17:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Combat Engineer in a heavy-mechanized brigade of the US Army. We roll in M113's as our primary vehicles. I've never ever heard it called the Gavin before and I don't even know anyone who has ever heard it called that. It isn't in the Technical Manual or even on the vehicle identification plate. Unofficially we call them "Tracks" short for "Tracked Vehicle". For example as used in a sentence "Take the Track to the fuel point and fill it up then park it on line in the motor pool". I can't cite that as a fact except for my personal experience, but I can gurantee you that there's at least one brigade of US Soldiers stationed in Germany who will tell you that we call them "Tracks". Of course lots of military vehicles can be described as "Tracked Vehicles". But as other vehicles have uniquely designated names the M113 dosen't. It's the only one we call a "Track" regardless of the fact that it sounds more like a vehicle class than a specific vehicle (it's kinda like the M249 SAW, Squad Automatic Weapon can be defined as a weapons class, but the M249 SAW is the only one that anyone actually calls the "SAW". The "Civilian Army Nerd" Mike Sparks (whoever the hell he is) can call them Gavins all he wants, but when I roll out the gate on a mission in Iraq it'll be in a M113 "Track". Ultratone85 09:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is to the "combat engineer". He should watch his mouth about speaking unjustified, disrespectful ill of U.S. Army officers which is an UCMJ offense. 1LT Mike Sparks USAR is a public figure who has edited an entire book with several other Army officers who call the M113 the "Gavin". If "combat engineer" wants to continue to call Army officers "nerds" he might end up calling himself "felon" or "combat engineer with bad conduct discharge". Aside from violating the Wiki guidelines to not do personal attacks, Soldiers are to abide by a high standard which stating lies about another person to make childish insults is a clear UCMJ offence and unacceptible behavior. He can call M113s "tracks" all he wants just like other Soldiers call M113s "Gavins"; but he damn well better not be calling commissioned officers insults just because he disagrees with them---and certainly without any facts.24.214.146.99 21:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, 1st Lieutenant Mike Sparks, USAR, will be the first to hang, having insulted so many senior officers on his pages. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 11:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Sparks. (24.214.146.99) How bout you watch your mouth too.....cant tell you how many times you have sent emails to others (service members) and called them vulgar names....clean up your web pages and watch how you disrepect personnel in other servics (like the USMC)...your web pages on combat reform are full of UCMJ violations... Brownt15 17:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify some of the comments made both by and about Mr. Sparks. I have to respectfully disagree with the comment at the top of this section that he is an Infantry officer. He may indeed be a commissioned officer, but if he is in the United States Army Reserve as he claims, he is almost definitely NOT an Infantry officer. The USAR is centered on combat support and combat service support. The National Guard fulfils the combat arms obligation. This means that either he is in the Guard or he is NOT an Infantry officer. I do not think it is worth the physical energy being expended to type this reply, but this particular person really gets under my skin. As far as the comment about speaking ill about Army officers, has the author of that comment read any of Mr. Sparks insulting diatribes to active duty soldiers that support the Styker or other platforms? Obviously not. I am a senior noncommissioned officer with 19 years of experience on both armor and Stryker platforms. I have been in units equipped with M113s throughout my career thus far. I have never, not once, heard anyone in the U.S. Army or elsewhere aside from Mr. Sparks and his companions refer to the M113 as a Gavin. It just is simply NOT referred to formally or informally as the Gavin. Maybe Mr. Sparks and his associates refer to the M113 as the Gavin, but that is simply not the case for the rest of the world. If Mr. Sparks would like to offer any information providing information to the contrary I would gladly review what he has to offer. Firstly, show me one person on active duty that refers to the M113 as a Gavin. Second, show me anything in print from the DoD or DA that list, describe or otherwise portray the M113 with the name Gavin. Finally, provide one small shred of proof of your service with either an infantry or special operations unit as a commissioned officer. I will gladly respond to any email comments or information from Mr. Sparks with a valid AKO email address. Tankguy 21:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

24.214.9.94

Are contributions by this IP to these articles to be trusted? I point to their history -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.214.9.94 This user has consequently been adding the name "Gavin" to the M-113 as if it was an official/unofficial nick. I would like to point out that this is not the truth, indeed something easy to wave off with official statements, lack of arguments, etc etc etc. 213.161.189.28 17:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Read everything on this Talk web page. Obviously if the Wiki page doesn't make biased and false statements like "never" and "none" then all the many Sparks organization and M113 Gavin supporters in general like 24.214.9.94 wouldn't have to cry "foul!" all the time and make changes to reflect the truth?

The truth is that a whole bunch of people call the M113 the "Gavin".

Those that don't like it need to get over it.

"Gavin" is the unofficial nickname of the M113 just like the "Warthog" is for the A-10 or "Buff" for the B-52.

Sparks, Grange, Liebert, Jarnot et al have written books, magazine articles, made web pages, private and public presentations, put up a web site which thousands of people have written in who call the M113 the "Gavin". They have even revealed an official DoD document which I'm sure will result in some hate mail sent to that agency.

One final point, reality is not what some nation-state government declares. We the people live a reality that does not need politicians to give it its existence, that's what Wiki is all about--putting the power of truth and reality back into the hands of the people who own human reality, otherwise the internet will be yet another lie machine manipulated by the establishment elites for their selfish, corporate ends.24.214.146.99 21:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey 1LT Sparks, if you're going to get fussy about people about people using words like "Never" and "None" check your last statement. You said:
"Gavin" is the unofficial nickname of the M113 just like the "Warthog" is for the A-10 or "Buff" for the B-52.
I'll remind you that "Gavin" isn't "The" unofficial nickname, rather it's "A" unofficial nickname. And a rarely used one at that. Ultratone85 13:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Gavin

Having "owned" a M113 for five years, I never heard of "Gavin" until now. I can understand the rational, as it appears that LTG James M. Gavin was a proponent for the M113. From a casual web search, it appears to me that those who are calling it the Gavin have an agenda. It looks like they are proposing the use of upgraded M113s in Iraq in place of the vunerable HMMWVs and Stryker. While a good idea (and I've wondered about this for some time myself), this isn't the platform for proselytization. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There are advantages and disadvantages to using Tracks instead of Humvees. Tracks have better mobility, more room to stretch out for passengers, more easily accessable storage, and M113s in Iraq are now being outfitted with RPG armor. On the flip side they require more upkeep, the drivers and commanders hatch is narrow and not designed to accomodate soldiers wearing body armor (seriously you just barely fit, remember this vehicle was designed before body armor was standard), it's a very rough ride, turrets with cupola armor makes gunning unbearably cramped, the new RPG armor makes opening the engine compartment a pain in the ass, The new RPG armor makes closing the ramp so difficult sometimes you have to have soldiers push the door closed because the hydraulics aren't enough to lift the added weight (some units take the RPG armor off the ramp because of this), the drivers' head is exposed (where in a humvee the driver is completely protected), and finally a damaged or totalled Humvee is much easier to recover.Ultratone85 09:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm intimately aware of the size of the TC hatch. While this article might benefit with a cited analysis of the pros and cons, it isn't the place to try to preach one way or the other. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The point here "agenda" is to state the true facts of the M113 which General Gavin deserves the credit for creating and to describe the current battle to have the vehicle named in his honor; which are taking place as we speak. Furthermore, old lies and misconceptions about tracked vehicles need to be corrected in light of technologies like band tracks so military effectiveness can be attained which we lack now as seen by the daily tragedy of road-bound Humvee/Stryker/MRAP trucks being easily blown up because they cannot go cross-country, at will to take unpredictable paths. If not wanting Soldiers murdered and maimed due to wheeled truck military incompetence is an "agenda" then we need more people with "agendas" and less in a death embrace with whatever the status quo is telling them at a given moment...now the "answer" is "MRAP" v-hull shaped trucks when reformers have been advocating them for years--on tracks---and when they fail against bigger and shaped charge bombs the Humpty-Dumpty drill will start all over again....Churchill said Americans always do the right thing---after they have exhausted all other possibilities! How many are going to have to die and be maimed before we do the right things advocated by the tracked tank reformers all along? And what does this say about our enlightenment? No, Wiki is exactly the place for all the facts to be presented24.214.146.99 21:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for military evangelism, and this article is not the place to push this agenda. If you desire to create an article titled Humvees are crap and should be replaced with tracks in Iraq or Controversies over military vehicles in Iraq, then go ahead. This is an article on the M113 and should include the origins, history, technical details and the like, but should include only a short section on the Iraq issues, as it is not germain to the M-113 in and of itself. The use of "Gavin" as a name is part and parcel of this proselytization. If the Gavin name is a method towards the goal of using tracks in Iraq, then someone is confusing the method with the goal. As I have noted, I think the 113 would be a better vehicle than the Humvees, but my opinions don't count in this article. I also think that using Gavin's name is this manner is becoming quite disrespectful. The Army did not name it Gavin from the beginning (you have to be dead or pretty much so to get a vehicle, system, base or building named for you) and it's not going to change after 40 years. It might be easier to try to get folks to rename the Statue of Liberty to Liberty Enlightening the World. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have the Simon Dunstan book on the M-113 somewhere, and in one point there is a 'commentary' from a soldier serving during Vietnam recounting his experiences during an ambush of the column of M-113's. I'm pretty sure he refers to them as 'Gavins', but you must remember that troops often use unofficial nicknames. After all, to use a previous example, while the official name for the B-52 was the Stratofortress, it was unofficially known sometimes as the 'Buff', but there is a difference between a nickname that ends up in wide use and one that dies out. Douglasnicol 16:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page title

For some odd reason, Talk:M113 Armored Personnel Carrier is redirecting to Talk:M113 (tank). --Gadget850 ( Ed) 05:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Original article might have been M113 (tank). I'll see if there's a way the main article can be changed into just M113. --Edward Sandstig 11:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That's what it looked like to me. I'm guessing that there was a decision to change the article name, but someone redirected the talk page. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move for talk page from Talk:M113 (tank) to Talk:M113 Armored Personnel Carrier

Talk:M113 (tank) → Talk:M113 Armored Personnel Carrier – The term M113 (tank) is misleading and is inconsistent with the main article page being M113 Armored Personnel Carrier --Edward Sandstig 22:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support Just want to keep things consistent and avoid any misunderstandings --Edward Sandstig 22:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Makes sense. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

You are wrong. Anything that is tracked and armored is a tank. Wiki needs to be source for truth not further buzzword chaos directed by those who want the function of tanks to be reserved only for heavy behemoths that can only operate in firm, open terrain. There are light and medium tanks in addition to heavy tanks and they don't need a turret to qualify as a "tank". WW1 tanks did not have turrets. The Swedish "S" tank etc. 24.214.146.99 20:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess the Bulldozers that the IDF slap armour onto suddenly qualify as tanks? Be sensible. Douglasnicol 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to look at basic dictionary definitions of what "tank" refers to. It does not refer to any tracked armored vehicle. Why would we bother having additional terms of this was the case? -- Thatguy96 20:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Discussion's also sort of moot, since the whole point of moving the talk page was because the main page was in fact "M113 Armored Personnel Carrier". --Edward Sandstig 20:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Says who?

pages can be moved. Reality doesn't stop just because we decide to embrace un-reality.

And the answer is yes, an armored bulldozer is indeed a "tank", maybe if you did some research you'd realize that a tank is a combat engineering vehicle created by combat engineers in the first place. Functions must be seen clearly if one is to understand a thing; buzz words like "bull dozer" do not disqualify an armored version being a "tank", wake up. If we had a time machine and sent back an armored bulldozer to WW1, they'd say, "Look at that tank with the earth-moving blade!".24.214.146.99 20:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh bull, a tank is an Armoured vehicle created for fighting. The whole 'tank' name was a coverup in the Great War to mislead German spies. The only 'bulldozers' that are tanks are those normal fighting tanks that have dozer blade attachments, like the Abrams, Challenger 2 series etc, however, the Panther vehicle taken off the M1 chassis while using a tank chassis is NOT a tank. In fact if you're so intent on what Wiki says, look at the definition of a tank.

A tank is a tracked armoured combat vehicle designed to engage enemies head-on, using direct fire from a large caliber-gun and supporting fire from machine guns. Heavy armour as well as a high degree of mobility give it survivability, while the tracks allow it to cross even rough terrain at high speeds.

In addition, the main armament of a tank is usually a larger calibre main gun than those found on smaller vehicles though not always the case. For instance compare the NATO L7 105mm or the 120mm to the 20-30mm weapons found on most IFV's or even the 76mm cannon found on the Scorpion which could be termed as a light tank. Douglasnicol 16:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, when you look at the whole history of tanks, the definition given above must be seen as a fast definition in common usage, and actually closer to the definition of "Main Battle Tank". Even today, we still have "light tanks" (even though we are trying to rename them as Mobile Gun Systems or Self-Propelled Antitank Guns), so the heavy armor part is not a must. All the way up to mid-WWII, there were plenty of tanks that had guns <40mm in caliber. This was never a "large caliber main gun" and today they would be considered autocannon calibers. A high degree of mobility is usual but there's always the King Tiger and the Maus. An ability to carry infantry hardly disqualifies it - no one dares deny Merkava's status as a tank. About the only thing that comes even close to being universal to "tanks" are the tracks and the "engage enemies head-on" part. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 11:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hence why I tried to say that for instance the 40mm armamament found on some tanks would be considered heavier for such a vehicle in its day. Heavy tanks are a mixed bag, the last ones I know of that were produced were the British Conqueror, the US T-28 and the Soviet T-10. Light tanks can be a bit trickier. The Scorpion I would class as a light tank, though the Scimitar I would class as a recon vehicle even though the share the same chassis family. I would also class the AMX-13 and Steyr SK-105 Kurassier as light tanks, and even something like the PT-76 could be considered such. The M-551 Sheridan is a tricky proposition though as it had a large calibre gun but was extremely lightly armoured. Newer light tank examples could include the Cadillac-Gage Stingray I suppose. Douglasnicol 15:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
My feelings regarding the new classifications are mixed. I don't mind separating APCs or heavy self-propelled artillery from tanks. But some are clearly frivolous - such as all the new euphemisms for what would have been called a light tank a short while ago... --Kazuaki Shimazaki 11:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

OK- I'm a bit confused- this section was about the talk page being under a different title from the article page. That issue was quickly resolved. It looks like this has turned into a discussion of the M113 being a tank- this should have gone to a new section for clarity. Regardless, the basic, unmodified M113 is an armored personnel carrier primarily used to transport infantry. Some variants (which technically would no longer be a standard M113) could be considered to be fighting vehicles or light tanks; other variants are used for a wide variety of purposes. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, apologies. The debate started out really as to what a tank is, calling anything with a modicum of armour on a tracked chassis was stretching it (my IDF bulldozer example). The debate has kinda dragged on. Douglasnicol 20:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure- just a gentle reminder- this isn't a forum, but a discussion on how to improve the article. Frankly, a lot of this page needs to be archived- I will get on that next week. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Success!

It has been moved :) --Edward Sandstig 15:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

US & foreign

ThatGuy96's reorganization is a definite improvement.

The heading "Other foreign variants" is a bit weird, though. It's not clear whether the US/foreign distinction refers to where a vehicle was built, who it was built for, or who it is in service with.

The M113-1/2 Lynx was built by FMC for U.S. service, but was rejected over the M114 (or was completed too late, I'm not sure). It happened to be bought by the Netherlands and Canada and equipped for their specific needs. I don't see this vehicle as being so much more foreign than, say an M113A2 or M901 in service with Greece or Norway.

The M114 was built long before the "M113 1/2" Lynx and was a dismal failure due to hull overhang forward of the tracks. The Lynx has superior mobility to even the proposed XM800 scout tank but came at a time when the Army was without money and a bad taste in its mouth towards scout tanks due to the failure of the M114.24.214.146.99 19:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would propose renaming "Specialist US variants" to just "Specialist variants", and put the Lynx in this section. Variants developed by a different nation, or specifically for their requirements, like the Australian M113s, still warrant their own section.

I know I'm picking nits, so I won't get uptight if everyone likes it the way it is. —Michael Z. 2006-08-04 18:00 Z

I would really be in favor of splitting the article into many articles in the way the Sherman page has been done. The sheer volume of M113 variants sort of demands it. The M113 APC page itself should be more about the history and the basic variations, not the plethora of specialist vehicles developed based on the chassis all over the world. I would be willing to help in moving things around, but I thought I'd do a little reorg to get the conversation started. Thatguy96 18:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point; that sounds like the right direction to proceed. Break off M113 Armored Personnel Carrier variants? —Michael Z. 2006-08-04 18:17 Z
Yes, and set it up like this M4 Sherman variants. Thatguy96 18:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The same thing happened with T-34/T-34 variants. —Michael Z. 2006-08-04 18:30 Z
Alright, its done, so please keep variant information to the appropriate pages. Thatguy96 19:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

BAE Systems

Why is there a template for BAE Systems at the bottom of the article? BAE is nver mentioned in the article- even if it was, this template has nothing to do with the M113. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadget850 (talk • contribs)

Apparently because the relevant FMC division went on to form a basis of "United Defense" which in turn was acquired by "BAE Systems". But I have no idea if the M113 was ever produced / marketed as BAE product. Bukvoed 14:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a corporate template, more suitable for articles on the companies listed. I don't see the relevance, so I removed it. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

M577

I ended up here on a redirect from M577. Does anyone else believe that they should be seperate articles?--JAYMEDINC 00:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

THE M-577, DURING THE VIETNAM WAR WAS USED AS A COMMAND TRACK (AND ALWAYS CALLED A COMMAND TRACK IN VIETNAM). BECAUSE STAFF CAN STAND UP INSIDE AND DISPLAY MAPS, ETC. IT IS A FACTORY MODIFIED M-113. BUT IS TALLER, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DRIVER'S COMPARTMENT WHICH IS AT THE SAME LEVEL AS THE M-113. IT IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN A STANDARD M-113. THE M-577 IS A VARIANT OF THE M-113. 03/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.34.20 (talk • contribs)


The page was split a while back and no one updated the redirect. I changed M577 to redirect to M113 Armored Personnel Carrier variants. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Very nice! Thanks much. --JAYMEDINC 03:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome. Let me know if you need more info- I have a set of 113 manuals that may cover the 577. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I think they should be kept to seperate articles. The M113 and M577 are very different vehicles regardless of their similarites. Ultratone85 09:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
They are separate. This article was split a while back and the 577 is now in M113 Armored Personnel Carrier variants. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I see now the "Variants" page. Very well done. Best possible outcome for handling the numerous kinds of M113. Ultratone85 04:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Gavin Advocacy

Its against Wiki guidelines to disparage another's views with terms like "BS".24.214.146.99 21:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI I added a paragraph explaining how Gavin is NOT AN OFFICIAL NAME.

Normally, I'd be content just cleansing the article of this stupid reference under the understanding that if it isn't present it isn't true. But this is getting ridiculous. Too many external sources are making the mistake. It needs to be addressed and shot down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.98.122.142 (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't think we need a separate section- probably just a few sentences in the history section. And there are some statements that are a bit vitrolic, especially reagarding a living person. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll add a section to the Wikipedia page on the M16 Rifle insisting that the official, unofficial name for the M16 is the "Pea Shooter" and I'll use it so much that all the army geeks will call it that even though no-one in the Army has ever heard it before. If Mike Sparks can do it so can I. Ultratone85 09:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't get it. Mike has thousands of people wanting to call the M113 the "Gavin", ultratone85 only has himself calling the M16 the "pea shooter". If he wants to disparage the M16 in contrast to those that want to honor the M113 Gavin, knock himself out! Go write books, magazine articles, make web sites, public and private presentations, and convince others by earning a following. Do the work. However, until then don't criticize those who have put forth the honest effort to a worthy cause, reflect on Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena". 24.214.146.99 21:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't really care if the vehicle eventually gets called the Gavin. If it does become the Gavin officially, then fine. What I do object to is your POV edits here on Wikipedia. This isn't the place to push the use of the term. --Edward Sandstig 21:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm still of the opinion that including this in a section is giving it undue weight. I'd rather see two or three sentences at the end of the history section. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Normally I'd agree with you, except that to include a section about why it isn't the right name will help educate people brainwashed by sparks. To completely remove the name would probably increase the likelyhood of people coming in and plastering it all over the article. But to leave it as it is with a section exposing the falsehood of the name will educate those who don't know any better than to call it a Gavin. Ultratone85 04:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Be fair, even Sparks did not say it was the official name. That's why there's a petition on his site to make it so. He uses it as his own support to it, not because he thinks it is the name now. Anybody that reads the site in detail will find that out shortly. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No- I'm for keeping this in. But as a completely separate section, I think it makes it appear to be more important that it really is, giving it more weight than it deserves. Frankly, the whole issue seems to be someones political fantasy. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I did a rewrite on the naming section. I added some other nick-names to balance things out and cut a lot of the extraneous stuff. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding work! Ultratone85 14:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Amphibious Vehicle?

I don't know where this comes from the M113 is designed to "Ford" water, which means it is capable of crossing shallow rivers (I think about 30 inches depth, but don't quote me on that figure, I'll have to look it up in the TM). Even though water will get in to a passenger and engine compartment, the vehicle is designed to do it. It also has a "Bilge Pump" for pumping the water out of the engine compartment when you get to the other side. But it definitely isn't "Amphibious" the same way that the Stryker is. Ultratone85 10:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have the TM on CD here somewhere- I will look it up. As I recall, there are two bilge pumps. Perhaps "swim" would be the better term- that's what I've always used on the M113 and the Bradley. The M113 swims quite well (unless you forget to put the belly plate on, but that's another story). --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It does say "limited amphibious operation" in the lead-in. I haven't found my TM set yet. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The M113 Gavin swims in water not just fords. It can be fitted with a kit to swim in the ocean. Read Army field manual FM 7-7. Sparks has pictures on a web page showing this, oh, I forgot he is making this all up---so saith the Sparks haters. Why don't you contact the defense company Aris Spa in Italy and tell them they do not exist and their Aris Gator kits to make M113s swim in the ocean are all a creation of Mike Sparks. Wait a minute. Sparks offers a direct link to them along with all those "Twilight Zone" pictures of M113 Gavins swimming: www.geocities.com/armysappersforward/amphigavins.htm

Maybe....the photos and videos were taken by being there when M113s were swimming? Wouldn't that be easier than trying to play Steven Spielberg and CGI-ing it? What of all the M113 Gavin Soldier users like Sparks himself...was their life experiences a CGI mirage, too? What of FM 7-7? Does the Army write manuals telling Soldiers how to swim M113s for fun and fantasy?24.214.146.99 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Users - Poland

Does Poland realy use more than 600 M-113? I heard about 60-70 vechicles. I found polish m-113 photo: http://lh3.google.co.uk/image/wojsko.polskie/RealGiQW4jI/AAAAAAAADis/vIxZ0Osba0A/10BKPanc-008.jpg It is M-557 isn't it? Another photo from training excercise: http://www.10bkpanc.sow.mil.pl/kronika/2007/2007_1/images/211_4.jpg

More galeries: http://lh3.google.co.uk/image/wojsko.polskie/RealGiQW4jI/AAAAAAAADis/vIxZ0Osba0A/10BKPanc-008.jpg&imgmax=640 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.13.196.226 (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Macedonia

Macedonia only has 30 M113A1 recived in 2003 it has not gotten any aditional ones since —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gon4z (talk • contribs) 23:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

I would be nice if any of these had references. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


http://www.vojska.net/eng/armed-forces/macedonia/equipment/armor/ there you go mate Gon4z 20:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed paragraph on Australian FSV in Weapons section

I removed the paragraph about the Australian FSV in the Weapons section that 139.168.223.116 added, since that variant was already discussed in M113 Armored Personnel Carrier variants. --Edward Sandstig 00:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


Mine plates and 106mm RRs

Hi!

In the paragraph starting with "The US Army, after berating the Vietnamese for flouting battle doctrine," I noticed the following statment about "belly armor, which consisted of a sheet of steel, bolted from the front bottom extending 1/2 to 2/3 way towards the bottom rear of the M113."

The info "1/2 to 2/3" is not correct. The belly plate only extended to the base of the second road wheel arm providing protection under the driver and engine compartment area only. In addition to the bolts at the front of the hull there were two "L" shaped brackets for each side that used two bolts for the base of the first and second road wheel arms. Those brackets had bolts that when through them up into the belly plate to help hold it against the hull bottom.

In the paragraph for "Weapons" I feel there is an error with the following statement: "Armored Cavalry units in Vietnam removed jeep mounted M40 106mm recoilless rifles (RR) fitting them to their M113s instead."

1. During my time with C Troop, 1st Squadron and later with G Troop, 2nd Squadron, the 11th Armored Cavalry (Blackhorse) Regiment (ACR) I never saw a 106mm recoilless rifle mount on any of the Regiment's M-113s.

2. Jeep mounted recoilless rifles were not standard issue equipment for an Armored Cavalry units. If a cavalry unit did have recoilless rifles, it would have been a modified issued item or possible a test.

3. Those recoilless rifles were standard issued equipment for the Heavy Weapons platoon of an Mechanized Infantry Company. Units in the states and in Germany carried their recoilless rifles inside the M-113 during movement. When those units deployed to Vietnam, their are the ones who mounted the recoilless rifles on top of their M-113s.

During my time in the U.S. Army as a 11D Scout, I never heard an individual's name used when talking about the M-113.

Roy 63.167.255.152 (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The 106mm M40 was standard to Divisional Cavalry Units of Infantry Divisions, utilized a combination of 1/4 and 3/4 Ton trucks, including the M151A1C and M825. If I remember correctly, a number of these units converted to mechanized vehicles. The error here is that all cavalry units are armored cavalry, which is incorrect. Regimental and Divisional Armored Cavalry elements did not have these weapons as you correctly note. I am still a but dubious of any sort of widespread usage of the combination, with it being much more common to ARVN and KAF armor units. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"making it the most widely used armored fighting vehicle of all time."

This is clearly and blatantly wrong and/or misleading. It implies both service length and production numbers to top all others, doesnt come close in reality. T-34 was built in larger numbers and the Universal Carrier is well over 110.000 produced. And the T-54/55 is something around almost 100.000 built and its been in use since 1947 and so beats the M-113 easily in both numbers and time in service.

I have corrected the text to read "one of the most widely used", which i expect should be right regardless if there are more than the above that are more "widely used". The numbers used above can be found on the relevant Wikipedia pages 81.224.32.80 (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Error in the Modifications for Iraq section

The photo with the statement that the 886th ESFS's QRF M-113s are equipped with claymore mines is wrong.

Those vehicles are being used for riot control inside military prisons and those claymore looking mines are non-lethal riot control devices.

Please check the following links:

http://www.pica.army.mil/Voice/Voice2007/070511/070511%20inventions.htm

1. Under the EM113A2 REV heading, check the third paragraph, third sentence: "Innovative features of the original REV include six Modular Crowd Control Munitions that can spray non-lethal rubber pellets into a crowd,.....

Claymores ARE lethal, therefore those are NOT claymore mines on the sides of the those Air Force vehicles.

2. Correct name for that version of the M113 is "EM113A2 Rapid Entry Vehicle (REV) Spiral 1 and 2.

3. All of the REVs are ex-Canadian bulldozer A2s.

For addational links, check the following:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=em113a2+rapid+entry+vehicle&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501-s&xargs=0&pstart=1&b=1

Roy Sgtscoutsout (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M113_armored_personnel_carrier/Archive_1&oldid=761106432"