±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: Angiolillo
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6587

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 118
Total: 118
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Community Forums
03: Member Screenshots
04: Photo Gallery
05: Community Forums
06: Photo Gallery
07: Community Forums
08: Downloads
09: Photo Gallery
10: Community Forums
11: Community Forums
12: Photo Gallery
13: Community Forums
14: Community Forums
15: Community Forums
16: Photo Gallery
17: Downloads
18: Community Forums
19: Photo Gallery
20: Downloads
21: Community Forums
22: Community Forums
23: Photo Gallery
24: Community Forums
25: Photo Gallery
26: Community Forums
27: Photo Gallery
28: Community Forums
29: Photo Gallery
30: Community Forums
31: Community Forums
32: Photo Gallery
33: Community Forums
34: Photo Gallery
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Community Forums
38: Community Forums
39: Community Forums
40: Photo Gallery
41: Community Forums
42: Community Forums
43: Community Forums
44: Community Forums
45: Community Forums
46: Photo Gallery
47: Community Forums
48: Community Forums
49: Community Forums
50: Community Forums
51: Community Forums
52: Photo Gallery
53: Community Forums
54: Community Forums
55: Community Forums
56: Community Forums
57: Photo Gallery
58: Photo Gallery
59: Community Forums
60: Community Forums
61: Community Forums
62: Community Forums
63: Community Forums
64: Community Forums
65: Community Forums
66: Community Forums
67: Community Forums
68: Community Forums
69: Community Forums
70: Photo Gallery
71: Community Forums
72: Photo Gallery
73: Community Forums
74: Community Forums
75: Photo Gallery
76: Community Forums
77: Home
78: Community Forums
79: Photo Gallery
80: Photo Gallery
81: Home
82: Community Forums
83: Community Forums
84: Community Forums
85: Community Forums
86: Community Forums
87: Home
88: Community Forums
89: Community Forums
90: Community Forums
91: Community Forums
92: Community Forums
93: Photo Gallery
94: Community Forums
95: Community Forums
96: Community Forums
97: Community Forums
98: Community Forums
99: Photo Gallery
100: Photo Gallery
101: Downloads
102: Community Forums
103: Community Forums
104: Photo Gallery
105: Your Account
106: Photo Gallery
107: Community Forums
108: Photo Gallery
109: Photo Gallery
110: Community Forums
111: Community Forums
112: Community Forums
113: Community Forums
114: Community Forums
115: Community Forums
116: Community Forums
117: Community Forums
118: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
M113 #1?????
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Go to page Previous  1, 2
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
clausb
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:12 am
Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

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

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


The question is whether the qantity factor reflects qualities of the vehicle (ease of manufacture) or the production system building it. I'd guess that the US tank plants could build Panthers at about the same rate as they could build Shermans and vice-versa.

cbo
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 22, 2006
Posts: 2514
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:51 am
Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

- clausb

The question is whether the qantity factor reflects qualities of the vehicle (ease of manufacture) or the production system building it. I'd guess that the US tank plants could build Panthers at about the same rate as they could build Shermans and vice-versa.

cbo


I'm not sure about that. From what I've read there were many parts of the panther that were desiigned to be 'massaged' into place. Also much of it was assembed as piecework.

The Sherman during it's development was worked over by automotive production engineers to tweak it for high volume series production. Everything from parts standardization to having a well developed 'Change Order' system for introducing changes to the production line had been well developed by the high volume production system used by the American automobile industry.

The big difference between the American and the European tank production was that The Americans decided that 35 ton tanks could be built on a true assembly line like passenger cars instead of by heavy engineering firms that were used to building locomotives and other heavy equipment.

It would have been interesting to see what a 'production engineered Panther' would have looked like after the American assembly line specialists had gotten done with it. It would also be interesting to see what a Panther fitted with some of the advanced features of the Sherman would have been (Like the constant speed hydraulic turret drive) but it would have been a much different beast that the standard Panther

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
clausb
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:18 am
Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

- bsmart
I'm not sure about that. From what I've read there were many parts of the panther that were desiigned to be 'massaged' into place. Also much of it was assembed as piecework.

The Sherman during it's development was worked over by automotive production engineers to tweak it for high volume series production. Everything from parts standardization to having a well developed 'Change Order' system for introducing changes to the production line had been well developed by the high volume production system used by the American automobile industry.

The big difference between the American and the European tank production was that The Americans decided that 35 ton tanks could be built on a true assembly line like passenger cars instead of by heavy engineering firms that were used to building locomotives and other heavy equipment.


You could be right about the design not being as fit for massproduction as the Sherman, but it seems that it was a good deal better than for earlier German tanks (which may not say much Smile )

I think the bottom line is that the number and types of parts that goes into a WWII tank of a given size are about the same. It needs an engine, transmission, armoured hull etc. What really governs output is access to rawmaterials, machinery, manpower etc. And here Germany was lagging behind the US. Add to that the fact that US plants, transport, etc. wasn'øt bombed every other day. In the bigger picture, improving the design for production may make some gain, but it cannot do much to change the basic production system and its flaws.

It would have been interesting to see what a 'production engineered Panther' would have looked like after the American assembly line specialists had gotten done with it. It would also be interesting to see what a Panther fitted with some of the advanced features of the Sherman would have been (Like the constant speed hydraulic turret drive) but it would have been a much different beast that the standard Panther


I think one problem would be that the Germans did not have the materials needed to make some of the features of the Sherman. The Sherman turret traverse, for example, used an electric motor for power and that togetherwith the required wiring might not have fitted well with Germanys precarious raw material situation. The mechanical-hydraulic system used in the Panther and Tiger used only steel.

cbo
Back to top
View user's profile
SHAWN
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Posts: 484

PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:37 pm
Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

hello roy,
it may not seem like much, but much respect to you and doug for serving on/in the track. thank you. my dads war photos dont paint a nice combat picture of the track. i think there must be alot of comparisons of the M4 in WW2 to the M113 in Nam.
when i called it a frig, i mean cause it was made by FMC (Food Machinery Corp., they made refrigators){M2/M3 also made by FMC}. i work in an aluminum fab shop and i wouldnt place AL between myself and bullets no how (unless it is moved by pratt & whitney).
it justed seems that good praise and all, that the, say "bad" qualities as told by my dad, by roy, by doug, others combat vets, hang heavy over that track thus hindering it being that close to the top of the list. you had to sandbag the interior, you woudnt ride inside (let alone fight from inside it-- ifv??), you wouldnt hang your limps inside or outside of the thing, you pretty much just rode on top... (please, please forgive me, but this doesnt make me feel confident in this thing). all of the pics dad has from nam that show damaged tracks, it isnt like they were lost in a european armored conflict. (they were lost to some of the best light infantry the world has seen).
we took AL plate out to the range, it dont stop .308, .223, unless you stack it up pretty thick... we spaced it (hell, that made it worse). it melts much more so than steel...

the M2/M3 is AL with steel plates hanging all over it...
arent the improved armor upgrades for the current M113 basically along the same lines?
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:37 pm
Post subject: Re: M113 #1?????

Hi Shawn! Hi Folks!

The following post is done in the spirt of showing those who may not know there is more to the story.
Before I started hanging out here, I have a VERY bad impression of the Sherman tank during it's use in NWE. Thanks to others who have pointed out facts I didn't think about before, I now feel that tank was the right vehicle, for the right time, and POSSIBLE the best that could be fielded at that time.

- SHAWN

my dads war photos dont paint a nice combat picture of the track.


How's this Shawn for a bad picture? All four of us survived hitting a large land mine. I think my right gunner died later of pneumonia in a hospital on Oklinawa. My right gunner/Platoon Leader was returned to the field after a check up and an overnight stay at the 93rd Evac Hospital, my driver returned to the field after a month of light duty. I returned to duty after three months of light duty.
There%20is%20more%20to%20the%20story%20than%20bad%20pictures.%20What%20counts%20(to%20me%20anyway)%20is%20the%20number%20of%20people%20who%20survived%20after%20their%20AFV%20has%20been%20hit%20by%20something.%20In%20the%20case%20of%20my%20first%20ACAV,%20most%20of%20that%20damage%20happiened%20AFTER%20we%20were%20able%20to%20get%20out%20of%20and%20off%20of%20it. Look%20at%20a%20picture%20of%20an%20Iraqi%20T72%20that%20has%20been%20burned%20out%20(like%20my%201st%20ACAV)%20with%20it's%20turret%20blown%20off.%20One%20has%20to%20ask,%20was%20the%20crew%20able%20to%20get%20out%20after%20the%20first%20hit%20and%20before%20the%20secondary%20fire%20set%20off%20the%20remaining%20main%20gun%20ammo?%20Both%20pictures%20show%20you%20a%20burn%20out%20and%20total%20destoryed%20AFV.%20However%20they%20do%20not%20tell%20the%20story%20of%20the%20crew.%20It's%20the%20crew%20that%20counts,%20not%20the%20vehicle%20and%20how%20well%20it%20does%20or%20does%20not%20survive%20a%20hit.
%20%20-%20SHAWN
%20%20
%20 when%20i%20called%20it%20a%20frig,%20i%20mean%20cause%20it%20was%20made%20by%20FMC%20(Food%20Machinery%20Corp.,%20they%20made%20refrigators){M2/M3%20also%20made%20by%20FMC}.%20%20i%20work%20in%20an%20aluminum%20fab%20shop%20and%20i%20wouldnt%20place%20AL%20between%20myself%20and%20bullets%20no%20how%20(unless%20it%20is%20moved%20by%20pratt%20&%20whitney).%20
Don't%20forget,%20FMC%20also%20made%20the%20LVTP7/AAV7.%20I%20have%20never%20heard%20the%20armored%20vehicle%20department%20of%20FMC%20call%20\"Frig\"%20before. Anyway,%20I%20am%20sure%20that%20the%20AFV%20plant%20was%20not%20the%20same%20one%20that%20made%20refrigators.
%20%20-%20SHAWN %20%20
it%20justed%20seems%20that%20good%20praise%20and%20all,%20that%20the,%20say%20\"bad\"%20qualities%20as%20told%20by%20my%20dad,%20by%20roy,%20by%20doug,%20others%20combat%20vets,%20hang%20heavy%20over%20that%20track%20thus%20hindering%20it%20being%20that%20close%20to%20the%20top%20of%20the%20list.
Name%20something,%20anything%20that%20is%20prefect.
%20%20-%20SHAWN %20%20
you%20had%20to%20sandbag%20the%20interior,
Not%20very%20crew%20did%20that.%20You%20could%20if%20you%20wanted%20to%20but%20there%20was%20no%20unit%20SOP%20requiring%20it.%20Nether%20one%20of%20my%20two%20ACAVs%20where%20sandbaged.%20In%20the%20case%20of%20the%20first%20one,%20sandbags%20would%20NOT%20have%20helped%20due%20to%20the%20size%20of%20the%20mine.%20That%20is%20just%20like%20the%20Sherman%20crews%20of%20WWII%20who%20put%20sandbags%20on%20the%20outside%20of%20their%20tanks%20just%20because%20they%20thought%20and%20hoped%20it%20MIGHT%20help.%20I%20for%20one%20didn't%20care%20for%20the%20idea%20of%20dirt%20being%20driven%20into%20my%20skin%20by%20an%20explosion.
%20%20-%20SHAWN %20%20
you%20woudnt%20ride%20inside%20(let%20alone%20fight%20from%20inside%20it--%20ifv??)
The%20driver%20rode%20inside.%20Sure%20some%20units%20modified%20the%20driving%20controls%20so%20the%20driver%20could%20set%20on%20top%20of%20his%20hatch%20and%20above%20the%20armor.%20During%20my%2018%20months%20with%20the%20Army,%20I%20never%20saw%20a%20M113%20modified%20like%20that. As%20for%20fighting%20inside,%20the%20M60%20gunner's%20had%20to%20get%20inside%20to%20fire%20their%20guns. The%20difference%20is%20what%20the%20vehicle%20is%20doing. If%20moving,%20the%20main%20threat%20was%20land%20mines%20under%20the%20vehicle.%20(Name%20a%20IFV/APC%20that%20IS%20prof%20against%20landmines)%20Therefore%20the%20best%20protection%20was%20riding%20on%20top%20the%20vehicle%20with%20both%20the%20bottom%20armor%20and%20the%20top%20armor%20between%20you%20and%20that%20landmine.%20It's%20a%20good%20thing%20the%20M113%20had%20a%20top%20that%20had%20room%20for%20the%20M60%20gunners%20to%20ride%20on%20top. When%20contact%20was%20made,%20the%20vehicles%20stopped,%20ending%20the%20threat%20of%20land%20mines.%20The%20M60%20gunner's%20then%20dropped%20inside%20the%20hull%20to%20take%20cover%20behind%20the%20side%20armor%20to%20operate%20their%20weapons.%20The%20driver%20of%20my%20second%20AFV%20came%20up%20with%20an%20SOP.%20When%20he%20saw%20a%2050%20cal%20ammo%20fly%20over%20the%20front%20of%20the%20hull,%20he%20came%20up%20out%20of%20his%20compartment%20and%20started%20firing%20his%20M16%20to%20the%20front%20of%20the%20vehcile.%20%20When%20he%20saw%20the%20lid%20of%20a%2050%20cal%20ammo%20can%20fly%20over%20the%20front%20of%20the%20vehicle,%20he%20dropped%20back%20down%20inside.%20%20What%20was%20that%20all%20about?%20I%20was%20reloading%20the%20M2.%20The%20crew%20firing%20weapons%20while%20inside%20the%20vehicle?%20Sounds%20like%20an%20IFV%20to%20me.
%20%20-%20SHAWN %20%20
%20 you%20wouldnt%20hang%20your%20limps%20inside%20or%20outside%20of%20the%20thing,%20you%20pretty%20much%20just%20rode%20on%20top...%20
When%20the%20main%20threat%20is%20landmine%20under%20a%20vehicle,%20you%20don't%20hang%20limps%20off%20the%20side%20of%20ANY,%20let%20me%20say%20that%20again%20ANY,%20AFV.%20That%20is%20not%20a%20problem%20with%20the%20vehicle%20or%20it's%20armor,%20it%20a%20problem%20with%20the%20blast%20wave%20moving%20up%20the%20side%20of%20the%20AFV%20that%20set%20it%20off.
%20%20-%20SHAWN %20%20
%20 (please,%20please%20forgive%20me,%20but%20this%20doesnt%20make%20me%20feel%20confident%20in%20this%20thing).
Having%20never%20been%20there,%20no%20problem.%20As%20one%20who%20has%20had%20an%20ACAV%20blown%20apart%20under%20me,%20I%20for%20one,%20think%20very%20highly%20of%20the%20M113%20and%20the%20FMC%20plant%20that%20build%20them.
%20%20-%20SHAWN %20%20
all%20of%20the%20pics%20dad%20has%20from%20nam%20that%20show%20damaged%20tracks,%20it%20isnt%20like%20they%20were%20lost%20in%20a%20european%20armored%20conflict.%20%20%20(they%20were%20lost%20to%20some%20of%20the%20best%20light%20infantry%20the%20world%20has%20seen).
It%20was%20a%20very%20good%20vehicle%20for%20the%20time%20and%20the%20threat%20is%20faced.%20It%20was%20used%20many%20times%20to%20do%20things%20it%20was%20never%20build%20to%20do.%20One%20example,%20used%20as%20a%20recovery%20vehicle%20to%20tow%20combat%20loaded%20Sheridans,%20estimated%20weight%2025%20tons,%20using%20a%20trailier%20hitch%20mounted%20in%20an%20aluminum%20ramp%20that%20was%20only%20rated%20at%207.5%20tons%20for%20towing.%20Towed%20a%20number%20of%20Sheridans,%20never%20broke%20the%20hitch%20or%20the%20ramp%20it%20was%20mounted%20in.
%20%20-%20SHAWN %20%20
%20 we%20took%20AL%20plate%20out%20to%20the%20range,%20it%20dont%20stop%20.308,%20.223,%20%20unless%20you%20stack%20it%20up%20pretty%20thick...%20%20we%20spaced%20it%20(hell,%20that%20made%20it%20worse).
Was%20that%20aluminum%20plate%20from%20refrigerators?%20Or%20was%20it%205083%20aluminum%20alloy%20rolled%20armored%20plate? Get%20yourself%20a%20M113%20and%20shoot%20at%20it%20with%20your%20.308%20and%20.223.%20I%20think%20you%20will%20find%20it%20will%20stop%20those%20rounds%20because%20the%20protection%20level%20it%20was%20designed%20for%20is%20a%20bit%20higher%20that%20those%20rounds.
%20%20-%20SHAWN %20%20
it%20melts%20much%20more%20so%20than%20steel...%20
True.%20So%20what? No%20body%20is%20going%20to%20stay%20inside%20a%20burning%20AFV%20if%20it%20is%20at%20all%20possble%20to%20get%20out.%20The%20melting%20happiens%20long%20after%20the%20crew%20is%20out%20or%20dead,%20so%20it's%20doesn't%20matter%20one%20way%20or%20the%20other.%20This%20is%20just%20another%20one%20of%20those%20'IT'S%20BAD'%20claims%20that%20has%20no%20merit%20in%20the%20real%20world%20of%20crew%20survival.
%20%20-%20SHAWN %20%20
the%20M2/M3%20is%20AL%20with%20steel%20plates%20hanging%20all%20over%20it...%20%20 arent%20the%20improved%20armor%20upgrades%20for%20the%20current%20M113%20basically%20along%20the%20same%20lines
Yes,%20the%20Bradleys%20and%20the%20M113s%20(the%20few%20that%20are%20being%20used)%20have%20been%20upgraded%20with%20steel%20armor. You%20are%20however%20forgetting%20the%20threats%20that%20the%20original%20designs%20were%20layed%20out%20for,%20the%20threats%20in%20Vietnam%20that%20most%20M113s%20faced,%20and%20the%20current%20threats%20the%20vehicles%20face%20today.%20They%20are%20not%20the%20same%20and%20upgrades%20that%20help%20protect%20the%20crews%20against%20the%20current%20types%20of%20threat%20have%20been%20added. Shawn,%20you%20feel%20the%20M113%20is%20not%20a%20good%20vehicle.%20OK%20what%20would%20you%20suggest%20the%20U.S.%20Army%20have%20used%20during%20Vietnam%20in%20place%20of%20the%20M113?%20Keep%20in%20mind%20that%20the%20Army%20had%20no%20plans%20to%20use%20the%20M113%20in%20Vietnam%20to%20start%20with. Maybe%20the%20Army%20could%20have%20used%20the%20USMC's%20LVTP5s.%20That%20was%20about%20the%20only%20other%20Infantry%20carrier%20in%20the%20inventory%20at%20that%20time%20and%20they%20were%20made%20out%20of%20steel%20and%20not%20aluminum%20armor.%20%20Asks%20Older%20Top,%20I%20am%20sure%20he%20can%20tell%20a%20bunch%20of%20good%20and%20possible%20even%20more%20bad%20stories%20about%20those%20steel%20boxes. Again,%20I%20say,%20I%20might%20not%20rate%20it%20as%20the%20best%20IFV/APC%20ever,%20but%20it%20would%20be%20very%20close.
Sgt, Scouts Out!
_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 2 of 2
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Go to page Previous  1, 2



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum