Little stories of US, Soviet (and other foreign) weapons in Vietnam

higurashihougi wrote:

Mike E wrote:Girls N' Guns!

Thanks for more content!

Now that the weapons restriction by the West are being lifted, what do you think will happen to NAM's forces? - Buy US weapons etc.

- I "love me some" Pho soup... Not kidding, here in the Silicon Valley area, there are *hundreds* of Vietnamese restaurants!

Honestly I do not know. Most of the Vietnamese weapons systems are Russian-origin, and as you can see, the Russian and U.S. weapon system are not very compatible.

There are several articles which suggested that Vietnam may buy the P-3C Orion and the Oliver Hazard Perry warship from the U.S.

For me, I think Vietnam should have some sort of contracts with the U.S. about the American weapons inside the PAVN, for example the M113, M107, UH Huey, Mxx, or else.

I strongly suggest that you should go to Vietnam and eat the food there. The flavour and spices is stronger and more difference than the Vietnamese food in the West. Probably because, in the West people do not use a lot of flavour or season powder.

IMHO opinion the M113 was far superior... It didn't have any major flaws, unlike the BTR-60 and even -70 (gas tanks.....). Plus I'd take the better off-road mobility, than on-road where it still performs excellently... The flexible design of the M113 would allow it to fit just about any armament/turret, so that complaint is unjustified.

You are right about the MTLB being a better compassion, but that itself has many design differences.

Werewolf wrote:I respect you but i can not understand how you as a vietnamese are so eagerly and willingly want to make USA as your partner when they are the ones who committed genocide in your country and till this date and in future in your country people are dying because of dioxins like Agent orange has still birth defects and dead births and completley fucked up in several regions of vietnam the genetic pool of the civil population and babies are born with such horrible defects that it is painful to watch.

higurashihougi wrote:
Hanoi's policy is that Vietnam are eager to make friends with all countries. As long as they do not threaten our sovereignty and independence.

It would be used as a troop transport in colder regions

better than the heavier BMP

Tell me a single country that is not threatent by USA if they are not going to do what Washington tells them to do?

Asf wrote:

Tell me a single country that is not threatent by USA if they are not going to do what Washington tells them to do?

Israel?

Werewolf wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:
Hanoi's policy is that Vietnam are eager to make friends with all countries. As long as they do not threaten our sovereignty and independence.

Tell me a single country that is not threatent by USA if they are not going to do what Washington tells them to do?

partizan wrote:Question for our Vietnamese frend. Some times ago I read something aobut 4 memeber spetsnaz team who eneterd Vietnam in late sixties just to test new dragunov snaiper for russian army in live battle condition. Maybe this is ot, or not,  but if you have any knowledge about that, from vietnamese sources would be nice to share with us.

GarryB wrote:

IMHO opinion the M113 was far superior... It didn't have any major flaws, unlike the BTR-60 and even -70 (gas tanks.....). Plus I'd take the better off-road mobility, than on-road where it still performs excellently... The flexible design of the M113 would allow it to fit just about any armament/turret, so that complaint is unjustified.

Comparing the M113 to the old BTR-60, both had similar armour protection... ie not much better than small arms fire and splinters. The BTR-60 was every bit as mobile as the M113 and had the advantage that if it ran over a small mine it would likely lose a wheel but not lose its mobility like the M113 would if it lost a track.

Standard armament of each vehicle was single 50 cal in unprotected mount for the M113 and 14.5mm HMG plus 30 cal coaxial in an armoured turret... pretty clear which is superior.

BTR being wheeled was cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate and is fully amphibous.

The M113s aluminium armour tends to burn when the vehicle catches fire.

You are right about the MTLB being a better compassion, but that itself has many design differences.

MTLB is a prime mover that would be more likely to be used towing large guns and their crews around the battlefield. It would be used as a troop transport in colder regions where deep snow was an issue because it tended to handle deep snow better than the heavier BMP, but was not normally used as a troop carrier.

higurashihougi wrote:

Mike E wrote:Girls N' Guns!

Thanks for more content!

Now that the weapons restriction by the West are being lifted, what do you think will happen to NAM's forces? - Buy US weapons etc.

- I "love me some" Pho soup... Not kidding, here in the Silicon Valley area, there are *hundreds* of Vietnamese restaurants!

Honestly I do not know. Most of the Vietnamese weapons systems are Russian-origin, and as you can see, the Russian and U.S. weapon system are not very compatible.

There are several articles which suggested that Vietnam may buy the P-3C Orion and the Oliver Hazard Perry warship from the U.S.

For me, I think Vietnam should have some sort of contracts with the U.S. about the American weapons inside the PAVN, for example the M113, M107, UH Huey, Mxx, or else.

I strongly suggest that you should go to Vietnam and eat the food there. The flavour and spices is stronger and more difference than the Vietnamese food in the West. Probably because, in the West people do not use a lot of flavour or season powder.

You are wrong - MTLBs are used instead of wheeled BTRs, not BMPs. BMPs are used throughout the country.

The M113 is far more mobile over rough terrain, which is where it really counts.

The M113 is a APC! For crying out loud, it doesn't need a large armament. - Ever heard of the AIFV?

Lies.... That has been a rumor for years, in reality Ai doesn't burn unless powered. - At worst it will spall, but not powder.

A better comparo as in it is tracked and with a similar role.

GarryB wrote:

The M113 is a APC! For crying out loud, it doesn't need a large armament. - Ever heard of the AIFV?

But at least give your gunner some protection from a pistol or fragments let alone small arms fire...

partizan wrote:Question for our Vietnamese frend. Some times ago I read something aobut 4 memeber spetsnaz team who eneterd Vietnam in late sixties just to test new dragunov snaiper for russian army in live battle condition. Maybe this is ot, or not, but if you have any knowledge about that, from vietnamese sources would be nice to share with us.

GarryB wrote:

The M113 is far more mobile over rough terrain, which is where it really counts.

Actually it isn't that much more mobile than a BTR...

The M113 is a APC! For crying out loud, it doesn't need a large armament. - Ever heard of the AIFV?

But at least give your gunner some protection from a pistol or fragments let alone small arms fire...

Lies.... That has been a rumor for years, in reality Ai doesn't burn unless powered. - At worst it will spall, but not powder.

You might want to tell the British Navy... after they had a few ships hit by exocet missiles whose warheads did not explode but the friction of the impact and fuel burning destroyed several vessels they decided to reduce the amount of Aluminium in their vessel construction and increase the steel content.

Aluminium has a much lower melting point than steel... which is why the MiG-25 is made of steel.

A better comparo as in it is tracked and with a similar role.

Better for who?  

Initially, the M113's machine gunner was almost completely exposed. But then the number of gunner get K.I.A was damn high, and the U.S. add an additional shield to provide a better cover.

Sandbags were also extensively used in the war, as a cheap "modular armour".

On the miltary parade on 10th October 2010 during the ceremony for Millennial Anniversary of Hanoi, people witnessed a very "exotic" firearms which resembled a member of American M-16.

Hey, somebody notice that the supressor in the 10 October parade is much larger compared to the original XM-177E2 ?

Tons of M113's were destroyed in NAM', I never heard about one powdering...

Anyone who believes that tracks are superior to wheels...

GarryB wrote:

Tons of M113's were destroyed in NAM', I never heard about one powdering...

Who said anything about powdering?

Look at a shot down Mi-8 that burned out and it is mostly ash and molten crap... look at a shot down burned out Hind and most of the structure will be intact unless it hit very hard.

Anyone who believes that tracks are superior to wheels...

Perhaps you don't have a lot of experience in that area... wheels are vastly superior to tracks on hard flat surfaces. When the ground gets softer tracks are certainly better but even a tracked vehicle can get stuck. Wheeled vehicles are lighter, faster and a fraction of the cost to operate, buy, and maintain. A small land mine will immobilise a tracked vehicle, but the BTR can trundle around with 1 or 2 wheels completely blown off.

For light not very well armoured vehicles the choice between tracked and wheels is a serious question... most vehicles in that category are air portable and many will be tracked to enable them to drive over a wider range of terrain to surprise an enemy from a direction they would least expect.

As a standard vehicle (APC) however you might notice a current trend of using wheeled vehicles... that is not an accident... it offers better protection than a truck plus amphibious capability.

The only real advantage of the 113 is the ramp rear door, but then an ambush from the rear could lead to all the troops and crew getting machinegunned in one long burst.

The BTR-60 you pretty much had to use roof hatches which left you vulnerable from all directions but only exposed those getting in or out, while later models with side doors allowed exit from the opposite side from an ambush.

BTW the BTR-60 has a central tire pressure regulation system that allowed the driver to deflate the tires to improve performance on soft ground like sand and mud and snow.

GarryB wrote:

On the miltary parade on 10th October 2010 during the ceremony for Millennial Anniversary of Hanoi, people witnessed a very "exotic" firearms which resembled a member of American M-16.

It is an M4 Carbine... I have one.

I bought a suppressor, but they have sent me the wrong one so I am trying to get the right one.

GarryB wrote:

Hey, somebody notice that the supressor in the 10 October parade is much larger compared to the original XM-177E2 ?

Original XM-177E2 didn't have a suppressor... it has a very long flash hider because of the very short barrel.

Ai burns best when it is powdered, in other forms it would be fine...

If if would burn, they wouldn't of gone for it, and used it on many other vehicles as well...

So? There is a huge difference between a heli and APC, and the heli will be much more of an explosion hazard when it crashes...

Plus, wheels are vulnerable to road imperfections, more so when the vehicle weighs multiple tons!

Plus, the shrapnel of a blast could immobilize a wheeled vehicle whereas a tracked one might be able to continue on.

Ballistic protection for wheels is still in its infancy. - Never-mind that vulcanized-rubber tires (which are somewhat common) can burn hot and long.

What do you mean by APC vs truck, MRAP?

The ramp of the vehicle will typically be facing away from the action anyway.

Tracks have more traction as well, and are in general more suited for rough terrain.

Thanks for the word "flash hider", untill now I have been using the word "flash supressor", but then my use of word may cause a lot of misunderstanding.

GarryB wrote:

Ai burns best when it is powdered, in other forms it would be fine...

To create bright white sparks in fireworks powdered aluminium is added.

That doesn't mean that in solid form aluminium doesn't melt and burn.

If if would burn, they wouldn't of gone for it, and used it on many other vehicles as well...

It is not magnesium... if all tanks exploded as soon as they were hit then crews from WWII wouldn't survive getting hit and losing several tanks. the fact is that most tanks and armoured vehicles will burn when hit and after time the ammo and fuel catches fire and you have a real bonfire.

M113s will burn but not so quickly that the crew and troops wont have time to escape.

To make a vehicle light you need thin armour. Using aluminium means the thin armour can be thicker but not too heavy. the extra thickness gives it more structural strength.

Air borne armour often has aluminium included as it makes the vehicle structurally stronger... AFAIK the Bradley has Aluminium armour too.

So? There is a huge difference between a heli and APC, and the heli will be much more of an explosion hazard when it crashes...

Mi-8s have explosion proof fuel tanks... they rarely explode... more often just impact the ground and burn.

Not exactly... Wheels are superior on hard-ground, but the M113 is performs very well there.[/qutoe]

Tracks are not efficient on roads... like running on the footpath with rugby boots on.

Also tracks cause more damage to dirt roads and sealed roads than wheels do.

Plus, wheels are vulnerable to road imperfections, more so when the vehicle weighs multiple tons!

Any pothole that damaged a wheel would damage a tracked vehicle too.

Plus, the shrapnel of a blast could immobilize a wheeled vehicle whereas a tracked one might be able to continue on.

the track would be blown off and would need immediate replacement...

Ballistic protection for wheels is still in its infancy. - Never-mind that vulcanized-rubber tires (which are somewhat common) can burn hot and long.

Never heard of run flat tires?

What do you mean by APC vs truck, MRAP?

I mean when the Soviets were mass producing BTR-60s most other countries either made their soldiers walk or transported them in 1.5 ton trucks.

The ramp of the vehicle will typically be facing away from the action anyway.

A feature any enemy worth their salt would try to exploit.

Tracks have more traction as well, and are in general more suited for rough terrain.

Tell that to the makers of the Jeep and Land Rover.

Rough translation from Vietnamese Wikipedia wrote:Tactics of the U.S. and Saigon goverment in Vietnam War

According to the U.S. military doctrine, M-113 is used as a "battlefield taxi", transporting troops right to the battlefield. Although Vietnam's rough terrain is not suitable for armoured vehicles, experiences showed that uncovered troops tends to suffer heavy casualties without the support from armoured vehicles. As a result, in Vietnam the M-113 was aslo used as an IFV rather than a pure APC. Armed with a 12.7mm HMG and two 7.62mm MMG, the M-113 became a formidable mobile bunker. The transported troops still can fought inside the vehicles instead of getting out of it.

Initially, the Saigon goverment used M-113 for training, and for testing the tactics of armoured maneuvers. At firrst, 32 M-113 was deployed in the battlefield units, amongst them, 30 pieces were organized into 2 armoured company. Each company had 3 combat group and 1 support group. Each combat group had 3 M-113, while support group had 4 M-113, 3 of which was armed with 60mm mortar and 3 rocket launchers. The remaining 2 pieces were assigned to the company commander and the repair detachment. These companies were sent into the Mekong Delta and fought under the command of 7th and 21th Rifle Divisions.

At the early phase of the war, M-113 was a very formidable and versatile AFV which had great cross-country capability, can operated in both mountainous and riverine area. The M-113 had caused a lot of difficulties to the PAVN guerilla who at that time had very little experiences and very few weapons against tanks and AFVs.

The M-113 in the Saigon armed forces was operating follow these rules

1) Only unload the troops in safe area.
2) Have to notice that in flooded rice fields, advantages of M-113 in mobility and secrecy are lost. The vehicle can only move with the speed of 20km/h in such places.
3) Make full use of .50cal machine gun to supress the enemy's RPG troopers. To increase the effeciency, the soldiers inside the car have to carry out the task of reloading the ammo. Other soldiers look out to detect the approaching enemies approaching from blind spot, or enemies hiding under the water.
4) Do not drive the M-113 into surgacane fields, cocconut fields, area near rivers or channels, flooded rice fields.
5) In dry season, engineers have to use explosive to destroy the dyke to make the ways for M-113, as the sunlight makes them dryed and uncrushable. Or they can build a stepped way instead. In rainy season, water makes these dyke become soft and crushable.
6) Experiences soliders know that, places where the water buffalo eating have shallow water and they can be crossed. However, places where the water level reach the buffalo's belly, these places cannot be crossed.

Thanks to good mobility and cross-country capability, and the initial lack of anti-tank weapons from the PAVN, the M-113 was used more and more as an IFV. The transported troops was fighting inside the vehicle, and after supressing all enemies firepoints, they rushed out to occupied the land. In the later phase of the war, M-113 was equipeed with more arms and armours, for example shields and covers for machine gunner, M60 machine guns in the flanks, sandbags and other improvised armour around the AFV. The upgraded was standardized in 1966 (called "A" upgrade kit) with shield plates for machine gunners and commanders and other armour plates. With such configuration, the M-113 was changed from an APC to an ACAV. There was a "B" upgrade kit with armour plates for machine gunners and commanders only, it was applied mainly in M-113 with mortar.

Compared to the standard concept of IFV, ACAV has several differences to fit with Vietnamese conditions. It has no anti-tank weapons (although some may have recoiless cannons or AT missiles), however it has heavy and combined anti-ground firepowers such as .50 machine gun, 40mm grenade launcger, 2x7.62mm machine gun, and firearms of the soliders inside. The additional cover in the top enable the soliders to fight safely from almost all directions. The vehicle's floor had an additional sandbag layer to provide anti-mine protection, in some cases the titianium plates were used instead. Some internal furnitures were removed to safe space for ammunitions.

However, such arms and amours significantly increased the weight of the vehicle, virtually stripped off the amphibious capability. Such tradde-offs were exchaned for increased fighting capability and the ability to supressed the scattered deployment of enemy troops, a tactic which was intensively used by the PAVN to reduced the heavily concentrated firepower of the U.S.

Rough translation from Vietnamese Wikipedia wrote:Vietnam's tactics to counter the M-113

After a perior of being suprised, the PAVN finally managed to find a way to deal with the M-113.

First, the PAVN heavily exploited the uncovered position of the machine gunner. The U.S. believed that armour cover was not needed as good vision and heavy firepower were more than enough. Results: 14 machine gunners were shot to dead in the Battle of Ấp Bắc. Casualties of the machine gunner rose so high that additional shield was added.

Rivers and channels with extremely dipped banks is another shortcomings of the M-113. The vehicle has no problem moving in water, but getting 10 tons of metal onto a dipped road is not an easy task.

The PAVN exploited the weakness of M-113 by using the tactics of very close combat and concentrated firepower. They built traps, mines, holes, obstacles, to stop and destroyed the approaching M-113 In an ambush, they concentrated all kinds of weapon to destroy the heading vehicles, and the machine gunners, in order to create chaos. A wavering, chaotic M-113 column became an easy prey for the PAVN to destroy.

Such tactics was successfully used in the great victories of Ấp Bắc and Bình Giã.

The PAVN discovered another weaknesses of the M-113, especially the thin aluminium armour of M-113 cannot protect it against heavier firearms and anti-tank weapons. In the later phase of the war, the PAVN guerilla received heavier weapons like B-40, B-41 (aka RPG), PGN-2, improved AK-47 bullet, 57mm and 75mm recoiless guns which were very effective against the M-113.

Wow, not even worth replying to that one!

GarryB wrote:

Wow, not even worth replying to that one!

Why?

There are plenty of designs that allow the fitting of simple rubber tracks to improve traction... for a cross country vehicle like a land rover they could easily have designed it to carry tracks that could be fitted for travelling on rough terrain.

They didn't bother.