Well, Sparky found my web site. He sent me this little note.

Thanks for the web page full of M113 Gavin lies!

People will hopefully go to it and we will run down all the facts to brush aside your prejudices--we'll keep it on paste, too!

Thousands of Soldiers and veterans have written in and now refer to the M113 as the Gavin and your whining about them "not to" only helps!

Thanks!

Mike =o)

Well, Sparky found my web site. He sent me this little note.

Thanks for the web page full of M113 Gavin lies!

People will hopefully go to it and we will run down all the facts to brush aside your prejudices--we'll keep it on paste, too!

Thousands of Soldiers and veterans have written in and now refer to the M113 as the Gavin and your whining about them "not to" only helps!

Thanks!

Mike =o)

I wish some officer in the military would find out about Sparky, go down whatever National Guard depot he is hanging around at, and proceed to punch him in the face or send him to Iraq.

Do the Brits have any lunatics ranting like Sparky?

What? No CAPS?

I was astonished that his email includes no CAPS, or the words narcissist and/or f—ktard. It was remarkably calm and almost sane all things considered. I’ve debated whether or not I should egg him on by responding. I’m sure the next reply will not be so civil.

I wonder if we could classify Sparky Syndrome as a disease seeing how a few people have "caught" it.

I wonder if we could classify Sparky Syndrome as a disease seeing how a few people have "caught" it.

Maybe Rossiman was actually Sparkey , could I have his Email address, I would like to drop this turd a few lines.

Could Rossiman, et al, conceivably be the fruit of a clone of Sparky+Odin?

perhaps we can rename the BMD as the Gavin, I am sure the Russians won't mind.

Sparky syndrome seems to be the cause of stryker syndrome where a sufferer beleives that a 10 ton armored car is the same as a 70 ton tank in terms of protection and firepower.

Sparky syndrome seems to be the cause of stryker syndrome where a sufferer beleives that a 10 ton armored car is the same as a 70 ton tank in terms of protection and firepower.

Btw FITZ, you should consider putting some of these on your page

Is that vehicle photoshopped or is it real? Is that a 5 ton or an M123 underneath the 113 hull?

Because the M113A3 has never been airdropped nor is it designed to be to the best of this writers knowledge (the A3 variant is too heavy).

If the M113A3 isn't airdroppable, why do they specify an Air Drop Weight of 22,128 lb. (10,037 kg) for it on the United Defense website ?

Probably a carryover from the original vehicle. Suppose they have to take the engine out to get it down to air drop weight?

Soooo

The Stryker Armoured car has to let air out of its tires so it can roll on roll off a C130 and start to fight

And the "Gavin" M113A3 needs to remove its engine to allow the C130 to take off...

Yes I know which I want to go to Air ops battles with

With all these thousands of soldiers calling it a Gavin its funny thwhen I teach AFV rec, ALLL the manuals refer to it as M113 A 1-2-3 etc. Could Sparky be persuaded to explain why? As i feel I am doing it all wrong and loosing good night sleep over this------------------------NOT

Damn you are right there... The AFV rec Cards I have that are US issue say its an M113 A 1-2-3, you are right. this must be some sort of plot to keep the Gavin nameless !!!!

Say it aint So

Probably a carryover from the original vehicle.

*NOTE*
Only the M106A1, M113, M113A1, and M667 are capable of LAPES operations.

*NOTE*
Only the M113, M113A1, and M667 are capable of LVAD.

Maybe.

FWIW, I checked the February 1993 Edition of TM-55-2350-224-14 (Transport Guidance, M113 Family of Vehicles) this morning and it has a couple of notes at the beginning of Chapter 5 (Air Transport) saying :

That is exactly what I needed. Thank you.

M113 Unsafe for Amphibious Training

The US Army's M113 armored personnel carrier (APC) and its derivatives have been declared unsafe for peacetime amphibious training. The ban applies to most of the US Army's M113 force of nearly 26,000 vehicles, including the 13,000-strong troop carrier force. The M113 is one of the world's most prolific armored vehicles, with more than 75,000 in service with the armed forces of 41 countries.

A spokesman for the Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) said the swimming prohibition applies to "all of the M113 vehicles other than air defense type vehicles."

As the M113 has developed, its weight has increased from about 10,660 kilograms (kgs) with full combat load to 12,250 kgs in the later M113A3 types. With additional external armor, the M113A3's weight rises to 14,000 kgs. The M113A3 has been banned from swimming since it entered service in 1986.

While a review of the amphibious capability is now under way at the Army's Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Virginia, the problem may be overcome best by simply eliminating the M113's need to be amphibious. "We're looking at ways to restore the swim capability," said a US Army public affairs spokesman at the Pentagon. "But first, we want to know: does it have to swim? What is the point in spending the money to make it swim again if we're not going to ask it to do that?"

Courtesy of Jane's Defence Weekly, 12 March 1988, p. 435

May your new-found friendship be as long as fruitful!

The answer to Sparks' porked Gavin campaign.

Greyhound
(slap on a little mexa, replace 37mm with a .50 and volia...instant mini-stryker)
You can even get DARPA to convert it to a pure bot and let it run independent missions...most likely smoking 113s that call themselves Gavins.

Unlike the Narcistic Gavin the M8 is still invading places on an annual basis.
Re-Invasion
M8 w/fire-team

If the M113A3 isn't airdroppable, why do they specify an Air Drop Weight of 22,128 lb. (10,037 kg) for it on the United Defense website ?

I am pretty sure it can be dropped from a plane, the question would be its ability to arrive to the ground in one piece.

I think it would arrive. As to whether it would still be in one piece after its arrival, is another matter for discussion.

I am pretty sure it can be dropped from a plane, the question would be its ability to arrive to the ground in one piece.

I know they did test airdrops of the Stryker ICV and Stryker MGS. Anybody know the results of those?

Reading your story I noted the Ranger contempt for the 10th MD soldiers who saved them and both them and SFOD-D for the APCs that saved them all. This light infantry silliness has not been solved. Why don't Rangers have M113A3 APCs organic? Read my web pages: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/5265/squad.htm and Pentagon/7963 The Pattern of War: Parts I, II, and III. We need force structure changes not just glorifying bravery due to incompetence and misunderstandings about the modern battlefield.

One last point: there is a differance between being light infantry running around in closed terrain woods and being SHOCK TROOPS taking on heavily fortified and defended targets. SHOCK TROOPS NEED SHOCK ACTION and Ranger light infantry ego will not realive this means using armored vehicles in their force structure, not just sexy, dune buggies that get shot into flaming wrecks by mere small arms fire like 5-ton trucks and HMMWVs put into use. Refer to: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/5265/m113.htm

The "trump card" a Ranger force needs has to be ON THE GROUND: a M113A3 APC with mini-gun or 106mm Recoilless Rifle. My previous reference was partially incorrect: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/5265/M113A3.htm

He keeps on about land mines in Iraq. He refuses to call them IEDs. He repeatedly quotes HMMWV losses to land mines.

Here is Sparky's latest outlet for his maniacal ranting.

Sparky's New Gig

I had not checked back there since I posted waaaaayyyyyy back.

Wow.

Have I made myself clear, "dad"?

Rounds complete.

Oh noes not the Stryker truck deathtraps!