PDA

View Full Version : Why were American APC's more dangerous than Australian ones?



Rising Sun*
04-26-2007, 04:21 AM
In Vietnam.

To the occupants.

Rising Sun*
04-27-2007, 08:55 AM
Time for a clue.

Brew up.

AllHailCesar
04-27-2007, 09:25 AM
Time for a clue.

Brew up.

I hear the word "brew" and I start thinking coffee. Can I have another hint?

Rising Sun*
04-27-2007, 09:57 AM
I hear the word "brew" and I start thinking coffee. Can I have another hint?

Forget the coffee beans. And brewski, as in beer. :)

"Brew up", in the context of this quiz, means in Australian and British usage the fire which occurs when an armoured vehicle gets hit by something nasty.

There was a significant but basic difference in the 'brew up" risk for American and Australian M113's in Vietnam.

But that's only about half of this question.

AllHailCesar
04-27-2007, 10:14 AM
Ah....crystal clear now.

Rising Sun*
04-27-2007, 10:17 AM
Ah....crystal clear now.

I try to please. :mrgreen:

AllHailCesar
04-27-2007, 10:30 AM
Im definately learning more here than Im contributing.

Rising Sun*
04-27-2007, 10:36 AM
Im definately learning more here than Im contributing.

Not yet. :D

Think about compression and ratios.

Cuts
04-27-2007, 12:46 PM
Fuel type ?
Septic ones being petrol driven & Aussie APCs diesel.

Rising Sun*
04-27-2007, 05:15 PM
Fuel type ?
Septic ones being petrol driven & Aussie APCs diesel.

Exactly.

As this part is probably too obscure for anyone to know, later Aussie ones also had extra armour in the belly to protect crew, giving them better protection from mines.

Nickdfresh
05-03-2009, 09:03 PM
RS* Are you talking about variants of the M113?

Rising Sun*
05-03-2009, 09:50 PM
RS* Are you talking about variants of the M113?

How the hell would I know what I was talking about two years ago? I don't even know what I'm talking about today. :D

The Aussie M113's were presumably delivered from America with diesel motors, or minus the motor which was fitted here.

My recollection is that the belly armour started out as a field modification in Vietnam, and I think it might have continued that way in base workshops until we left.

Uyraell
05-03-2009, 10:21 PM
Yes, if my thinking is correct.
Kiwis tended to copy Aussie adaptations to the M113.
Americans were great at improvements to the armaments, but less effective at provision of adequate armour protection.
By contrast, Aussies and Kiwis "made do" in the armament department, but increased the armour protection of the M113.

The employment of diesel engines lessened the fire risk if the vehicle were hit, and did not greatly alter the maintenance requirements of the vehicle.

I do question the employment of the M113 in Vietnam though: like its' Wehrmacht ancestor, the M113 had been designed primarily for a war in European conditions, and was somewhat unsuited to a war in Asia, where weather was more of a factor regarding the stability and suitability of (often waterlogged) ground being crossed in such a mobile war.

Regards, Uyraell.

Nickdfresh
05-08-2009, 10:42 AM
Actually, I have no idea if the Aussie Army increased protection. But the standard US Army "ACAV" modified-version mounted more belly armor in addition to several machine-guns as well as other add-on goodies with local modifications. The M113 also mounted a diesel engine standard after the gas/petrol one was phased out in the mid-60s although some of the first arrivals to 'Nam probably mounted petrol engines unfortunately. I think I read that the Aussies mostly took delivery of the ACAV versions and these may well have been the same the US Army used. Ironically, according to Wiki, it was the South Vietnamese that first up-gunned the M113s and added armor as improvised infantry fighting vehicles rather than just passive APCs...

I do recall reading however that the aluminum armor was still prone to "melt" after strikes by rocket propelled grenades. I've seen aerial after-battle photos of circular holes on the tops of m113s that literally melted out and completely incinerated their unfortunate crews. But it still was, and is, a very effective system that was extremely useful as long as you didn't ask it to do too much...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2383/2456449354_fb3ac5e80f.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3058/2508538157_43e8b5cb8b.jpg

boyne_water
05-08-2009, 11:41 AM
Australia also upgraded the firepower on about a dozen M113s by fitting the turrets of old Saladin armoured cars.They were replaced by ones with Scorpion turrets,

tankgeezer
05-08-2009, 01:27 PM
The M-113 was a 13-15 ton aluminum box, slab sided, and very thin. The idea was to provide an amphibious troop carrier(they do swim, but its kinda scary.) to cross the usual rivers, lakes etc.(It would swim only with the full load of infantry, or an equivalant weight of cargo, or ballast, being bow heavy) I'm not sure if the Soviet BMP had anything to do with its being adopted. It had little defensive capability, just one M-2 .50 cal at the Commanders position. The later A-Cav version had 2x .30 cals and the .50 with armor shields. Better indeed. We called them Paper Cups (P.C.) as they wouldnt stop very much incoming. RPG's would gut them, ripping large holes in the aluminum, any larger mine, or bomb would do them in as well. Even the Fletchette round darts would go through. The best places to aim on a 113, is either the left rear, (fuel tank, 80 gal. Diesel) or right front, (Engine) Wasnt my favorite AFV, but it was what we had at the time.