So time for the M113 to go back into production? Maybe mount an RWS with AC and 2 ATGMs?

M113 has reportedly done well / been quite handy and useful for its assigned roles in Ukraine. And apparently there were a lot of them available to hand over.

But while the M113 was 'cheap & cheerful' when it was produced I fear it would likely be quite expensive if produced today, at least in the US due to lack of competition and price gouging. 

Very recent 60 minutes on that.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/weapons-contractors-price-gouging-pentagon-60-minutes-transcript-2023-05-21/

So if we're going to be overcharged, might as well get a more modern weapon system. 

The US Army is already acquiring a "more modern" -- and more expensive -- replacement for the M113:  The XM1283 AMPV.

I was wondering if AMPV really does more than an M113, though. Or rather, it has some updates, but are they worth the cost? Especially when you're looking at support roles. If you use IFVs for infantry transport, do you need a really sophisticated vehicle for ambulance, mortar, or ATGM use? Let alone artillery transport, comms/headquarters, or rough terrain supply transport.

farmplinker2 said:

I was wondering if AMPV really does more than an M113, though. Or rather, it has some updates, but are they worth the cost?

AMPV does the same jobs that the M113 did.  Since it's a lot bigger, AMPV can carry a lot more.

farmplinker2 said:

If you use IFVs for infantry transport, do you need a really sophisticated vehicle for ambulance, mortar, or ATGM use?

I don't know if AMPV is a "really sophisticated" vehicle, but having the same basic vehicle for those roles seems to be desirable.

stancrist said:

The US Army is already acquiring a "more modern" -- and more expensive -- replacement for the M113:  The XM1283 AMPV

A coolio, hadn't heard about that one.

And much more expensive...quick google said 3.7 mil in 2015. Although I imagine prices might come down as production increases.

Thanks! I heard it was bigger, but I didn't know it was that much larger. Future SP gun variant, soon?

Refleks said:

First, there is nothing wrong with Merkava's mobility, that's largely a myth

That is not true. It got better over time but its still sub par.

Refleks said:

Its power to weight and ground pressures are comparable to its peers.

Only in the latest version of the Merkava and in the latest and heaviest versions of the peers.
Never the less this is not the only factors that are important for mobility. The Merkava for example uses a suspension that is not well suited for high speed travel. Its also too wide for rail transport and thus problematic for road transport. The river crossing and deep fording capabilities of the Merkava are seriously limited.
The Merkava is simply not designed for long range operations and strategical mobility.

Refleks said:

I understand you believe class 60 vehicles are obsolete,

Not obsolete but rather obsolecent. They are ok until something new arrives but far from optimal

Refleks said:

but understand that this is your opinion and not everyone shares it.

Sure. But this has been my opinon for quite some time and now. The recent experience in UA supports my opinion. Now the powers that be change over to it as well. Besides I have been far from alone with this opion to begin with. So there is strong evidence that this opinion is at least going in the right direction.

Refleks said:

My point is, where MBT class weights ARE supported, then infantry should be riding in comparable levels of protection.

This is a opinion I share. But it doesn't say anything about how heavy the MBT and the IFV or APC should be. Just that they share the same protection level for close cooperation.

Refleks said:

I don't want to see Bradley, CV90 or Pumas riding alongside Leopard 2A6 and M1A2.

Even though these do not have MBT levels of protection its better for the MBTs and the listed IFVs if they do ride alongside each other. In any other case both would end up unsupported and IFV and MBTs best work together. Its basically the reason of existence for the IFV.

Refleks said:

I also don't accept we should just drag MBTs down into the Puma weight class.

Who said that? The Puma is on the ligher end. Its basically a victim of the original requirement to be air portable in a A400M. Which it isn't in its current form but the resulting limitations still have an effect.
A sensible max weight for a tracked AFV is 50-55 t.

Refleks said:

The US and NATO countries have been operating vehicles in this weight class for decades

With the very exception of the US not really. The numbers operated have been very small. Just compare the Bundeswehr of the early '90 to that of today. We talk about a Leopard 2 A4 fleet of more than 2000 tanks. Plus Leo 1 which has also still been in service back then. Of the 60+ t versions barely more than 100 have been in use at the same time. Now they plan to go up to 250. But even these are only of limited operational capability. Because there is a lack of the required support vehicles that can handle the weight. There also have been no large scale excercises anymore for decades. The German infrastructure is not able to support such vehicles anymore. Since the end of the cold war bridges have not been planned for tank use. Even the MLC signs have been removed in most places. How many Challengers do the Brits operate?
Even with the US its also important to look where they have operated their 60t+ MBTs and what they have been used for. We talk about a totally different area of operation and scenarios here. What worked in 2003 and later in Iraq will most likely not work anywhere outside of the middle east.

Refleks said:

they can certainly support them and expanding this to HAPC/HIFV is imminently achievable by NATO allies had they actually been allocating the the 2% GDP to defense they made a commitment to.

If we talk about the German army purchasing maybe 100 or 200 HIFV to support its Leopards you might be right but this is not the numbers needed and an APC as mentioned is not only an infantry battle taxi but also an equipment carrier. So a lot are needed. Significantly more than are needed to carrie the mech inf units around.
IMHO the 250 MBTs currently planned by the German MoD are way to few. A good number would a fleet of 1000 MBTs plus 1000 IFVs. 2 % might be able to buy these BUT you need to maintain them, facilities, munitions, supplies etc. Nothing of this is there anymore. It all has to be rebuild. This will be very expensive. Propably as expensive as the vehicles themself. The real problem will be the personell. The German military so far has failed to reach its planned strength of 200k soldiers. In reality the number is falling. Chances are even with significant pay increases it will be close to impossible to fill the ranks. There is a serious manpower shortage in Germany and several other places in Europe. The sallary increases in the civillian economy are massively outpacing not only the military but governmental agencies in general.
I also don't think you are aware how bleak the situation for example in Germany really is. About half of the defense budget has spent on personell for decades. Inflation now struck hard so everything got more expensive. The existing budget now pays for less. In addition there will be payment raises to compensate inflation that have the potential to blow personell cost from half the budget to two thirds the budget. Effectively eating the allocation for procurement. An increase to 2% will do little to change that.

Refleks said:

you decide on what protection you need and that drives weight, and as long as it doesn't impact mobility and reliability excessively (it doesn't) then you end up with the weight you end up with.

You forgot cost limits. And no there is a hard cap for weight really. If you go over it you end up with equipment that is barely usable.
The 60+ t MBTs we are seeing now have not been designed the way you describe BTW. The size, mobility, ground pressure and other things where fixed. There have been weight limits in place. They then tried to get the best mix of firepower, mobility and protection within these limits.
The massive weight increases came later. At the point in time when the successor systems should have entered service. It was just decided that the overweight, upgraded 40+ year old MBTs are still good enough. They are not modern and no benchmark for truely modern systems.

schnuersi said:

In general for HIC and a general purpose, non combat role and wide range of uses you want a vehicle as cheap as possible so they can be used in vast numbers and be used up. Basically you want a modern take on vehicles like the M113. IMHO AFVs like the Armadillo and Bronco are to complicated and way to expensive to be fielded in four digit numbers.

I was thinking Bronco/BvS10? For personnell carrying capacity and sheer ability to get everywhere.

graylion said:

I was thinking Bronco/BvS10? For personnell carrying capacity and sheer ability to get everywhere.

That really is not a good idea.

Such vehicles are so optimised for cross county use, specifically over very soft ground, that they can not go anywhere else anymore. The fastest way to run your articulated ATV down is to operate it on roads and and hard surfaces. While they can technically go there they won't do it for long.
The usualy way to deploy Hägglunds for example is to load them on a truck, drive as far as the truck can go and start using the Hägglund from there.
So its doable but the required resourcess for maintenance are very high. Making this not a good option. Which is the reason why really no one does it.