Talk:M113 armored personnel carrier/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Gavin" nickname creation of Mike Sparks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Gavin

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Talk page title

message: :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)
replies: text: *Support Makes sense. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: Then I guess the Bulldozers that the IDF slap armour onto suddenly qualify as tanks? Be sensible. Douglasnicol 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  BAE Systems 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Very nice!  Thanks much. --JAYMEDINC 03:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  M577 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Outstanding work!  Ultratone85 14:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gavin Advocacy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Amphibious Vehicle?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Users - Poland 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Macedonia  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph on Australian FSV in Weapons section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mine plates and 106mm RRs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "making it the most widely used armored fighting vehicle of all time." 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Error in the Modifications for Iraq section