I was a squid, I never was even close to an M113 to my knowledge.
While the Charleston was an Amphibious vessel, we only ever carried trucks.

I was reading that some were fitted with firing slits for evaluation but were unpopular with troops. What is the explanation for the unpopularity?

Second, a standard M113, not an unarmored and open top, how much in actual weight / mass can the vehicle carry?

Third, some have been fitted with claymore mines? The picture I saw looked like two on the side and two in the front. Are there any fitted in back? As well, how are the activated and who has controls to activate them?

Fourth, the M1064 has two top hatches to fire the mortar. Is the standard M113 fitted with the same hatches or how is teh top set up?

Third, the CV90120-T is fitted with a 120 mm cannon, could a variant with a turret of the M113 be fitted with the same weapon? If so, how much redesign would be needed? I realize it would likely mean no troops could be carried?

I'm a little bit better off...when I was a yard ape, I climbed into the troop compartment one at a state fair. Also, I remember an edition of "The Big Picture", a US Army PR series from the early '60s, that featured an M113 with the firing slits. My guess is that the interior is too cramped for troops to use rifles effectively. For adults with all their gear, those things are tiny (Paging Doug Kibbey, paging Doug Kibbey).

Why don't you drop a line to Sparky? You might be able to persuade him to share a thought or two...especially if you use the "G" word liberally...

Well, this is tanknet, a M113 is not quite a tank but definitely in the AFV category so someone should know something

There is a lot of info for the M113Ga... almost but the subject has been tainted by Sparky. The picture of the M113 with claymores is apparently airforce with the riot control version fitting real claymores would be like making your vehicle a kamakazi M113.
The British 43 mortar carrier is a standard hatch arangement the same is probably true of the mortar M113 as long as there nothing in the way of the rounds why would you need special hatches.
From what has been on this site fitting any large turret like M901 Improved TOW vehicle makes it very top heavy an liable to tip.

FITZ page http://home.comcast.net/~genericdad/m113gavin.html has some good info if you read past or better yet read through the Sparky Bashing.
other than that finding info for the M113 on the internet will get you some of Sparky porn although it has dropped of reciently I think Sparky's going after UAV's so he might be the flyboys problem now.

Given the membership here, there's likely enough knowledge to build a 113 from scratch...

Pardon my weak joke...

You mention that the inside was tiny and likely created problems with using small arms through the firing slits (what I am curious is do they have any appreciable effect on the armor of the vehicle) but they had only the M-14 and M-16 and the M-4 has a much shorter barrel. Was the problem with the slits or that the rifle was too long?

My fisrt experience withthe M113 was when we received mounted infantry tactical training in Basic. At that time, a leg infantry squad had ten men - all of whom had to try and fit onto the bench seats of the 113 with all of their LBE on, so close to each other that your neghbor's canteen would be digging into your kidney and rifles were vertical with butt down in between your legs during the drive. If you were the suqad leader, your place was right next to the door/ramp so you could be the first one out when the squad dismounted and deployed. Those unlucky squad members sitting toward the forward end of the 113 were not so lucky, as unassing that thing and bypassing the TC's platform without getting something caught on the vehicle or on the platform was rare.

I do remember one or two getting motion sickness while the squad was inside during a drive and the roof hatches were closed. It does seem that, when the roof hatches were open and fresh air could get in, that there was little or no motion sickness amongst the passengers.

This was the proposal for MICVFPC (Mech. Inf. Combat Veh. with Firing Port Weapon). The FPW is also the M231 and was proposed on Bradley's, too. It's a modified M16 since normal shoulder weapons were unwieldy inside the vehicle. M231 has a modified buffer group with virtually no stock, no sights, different fore"grip" and was intended to be a higher rate-of-fire weapons you'd bring onto target with tracers. Basically a spray-and-pray weapon from under armor, since actually sighting ont-the-move would be nigh impossible. Littlefield has one stashed away and I can't imaging 8 guys in there bumping butts trying to stay out of each other's way while trying to hit something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M231_Firing_Port_Weapon

Rocky, you mention Roof Hatches?
Does the M1064 and M113 have the same roof hatches or are they larger in the M-1064?

Roof hatch is completely different in all mortar carrier models.

The roof hatch of the M113 was single piece and opened to the rear. The M1064 had a two piece roof hatch that opened to either side of center.

Been 14 years but a 113A2 had a roof hatch that flipped back. Forgot if it was the same as the mortar section or not. It didn't seem cramped but most of the time it was me and my TC(battalion Mike Golf) in it most of the time with the ALO officer and his NCO and the FIST guy and his radio guy. So we had 6 people tops at NTC during the "battles" and they went wherever after the battle. Didn't seem cramped but it was a glorified RV for me.

Unfortunately, I never actually tried to use the IR driving periscope. Relied on nods and squinting. Didn't have to do much night driving anyway.

To stear we used to two levers which were pretty simple when working. They told me right before the road march where I was a Duece 1'2 driver that I was the 113 driver. Got in and realized the steering was messed up. Wasn't bad when going slow but hairy keeping up with the M1A1's in a road march since we were in the rear. So it was the gun it and brake yoyo for me. Didn't want to brake to fast or could spin out since one brake worked and the other was loose. Ease up on the throttle and slowly brake. Mechanics tried fixing it but would come loose after awhile. Other than that it was a easy vehicle to drive, wash rack, and do PMCS on. It was a slow track and hard to keep up with the M1's at NTC.

It was a fun vehicle to drive but wouldn't want to drive one in a shooting war.

DK, any pictures of an open top hatch for the standard M113?

Google be your friend.

Here's another version.

Did the test rigs with firing ports still have an internal fuel cell?

And did they consider using M3 "grease guns" as firing port weapons? There must have been thousands left in storage in the late 60's.

I believe the MICV version retained the internal fuel cell.

"The Rock Island Arsenal headed up the project working with the M3 submachine gun, an FPW created by HK based around the HK33, and a modified AR-15/M16 pattern weapon. The qualities of the last weapon made it most promising, and by 1974 it had been designated XM231. Colt was given the contract and continued to work on the design, and by 1979 the finalized weapon was adopted as the M231."

Littlefields has one of the M113 with the firing ports, I think I took a picture of it, will try to find it.

Here is a picture and a link http://www.toadmanstankpictures.com/xm734.htm

I believe that's the 1967 predecessor M765 to the proposed "Product Improved M113A1", not the slab-sided MICV proposal. Have a sales brochure around here somewhere. I've seen two with the ports in the "conventional" sides, not that it's much different apart from that. "Product Improved" version had an additional round hatch behind the TC hatch and mounted a 20mm gun.

Ok seriously: that is a BS...the M113 has all the room that you need for shooting from ports if you compare it with BMP-1 that has 9 men in lot smaller room. Main difference is that in BMP you sit with your face outwards and AFAIK the reason for that is in fact the ability to use firing ports.

The another thing is the usefulness of firing ports...IMHO those are unusefull (like Doug described it) as you are only able to "spray and pray" with rifles while IFV is bouncing and you have very very limited fire arcs. Also unless you have two weapons for every men weapons mounted to firing ports has negative effect on squads ability to dismount rapidly.
I've used and taught usage of firing ports with both BMP-1 and -2 but only thing that seemed even slightly sane was the use of only the PKM's in front firing ports of BMP in break through attack...The method of using firing ports is still taught in FDF as an option to conscripts, but it is not used.

You mean like this? Though this one looks like an ACAV derivative.

Yep, that one's essentially like Littlefields.


Edit to add....(now that I got around to scanning it)

Seems I didn't take a picture, although i thought I did, the firing port M113 at Littlefields had benches in the middle, so the soldiers would be looking outwards.

Yes, it has a different interior arrangement altogether than standard M113. I saw Littlefield's, but also didn't take that pic.

That one (or one just like it) has been for sale for a while.

http://www.intlrepo-depo.com/vehicles_for_sale_3.htm