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

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 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.

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.

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.

The transfer of this ship to Vietnam has become the most significant supply of American military equipment to this country since 1975. Ironically, in 1970-1971, Morgenthau was actively used during the American war in Vietnam, seeking to prevent the supply of naval supplies from North Vietnam (Vietnam) by Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam, as well as to shell the coast during operations against the Vietcong. According to the official history of the ship, seven sunk and three damaged boats were added to the Morgenthau account, including an armed 50-meter North Vietnamese SL-8 trawler, sunk in artillery battle on April 11, 1971. In 19 artillery shelling of coastal targets, the ship claimed 12 destroyed and three damaged "bunkers" and 32 destroyed and 37 damaged buildings, "confirmed" the destruction of 14 armed persons.

Isos wrote:

On the bmpd side, we will point out that the 100-mm Vietnamese-made mortars installed on these machines are apparently copies of Chinese type 71 mortars of the same caliber.

So they buy military hardware from US who destroyed their country not long ago and they put chinese weapon on it while china invaded them after US stoped the war ... while russia wgo helped them during all the war has bmp 3 with mortars far better and cheaper than this thing for export.