What If the British Army bought the M113?

[Weaver]

Okay, I really have 97 things I should be doing before modelling at the moment, BUT sorting the house out has got stalled for various boring reasons, and I'm going mad with frustration waiting for my purpose-built modelling room, so this evening I've snapped, got the portable kit out on the dining table, and started on a simple little idea I had a few weeks ago.

What If the British Army bought the M113?

Seems a perfectly reasonable idea to me: nobody else bought the FV432 and just about everybody else bought the M113, some countries after having evaluated it against the FV432 and found the latter wanting. So what if the British Army did the same thing in the name of NATO standardisation etc...? Of course, that standardisation wouldn't have lasted past the first round of "we need our own special versions for our own special needs...." but then every other M113 user did that to a greater or lesser extent anyway.

I have a vague Britain-in-Vietnam background going on too, so interoperability there might be another driving factor, and some of the lessons-learned might well end up being much the same as the Australians, so my intention is to seriously deplete my stash by building FOUR models, all from Airfix/JB 1/76th bases:

Section vehicle with a Saracen turret and a circular rear hatch
Fire-support vehicle with a Scorpion turret (the background is that this turret was designed for the M113... )
Recce vehicle with Scimitar turret
ATGW vehicle with Swingfire

Started cutting and glueing on the turreted ones: photos when there's something worth snapping....

[Thorvic]

Actually the FV432 is better as its all steel rather than Aluminium. i know my ex REME mate would always favour a 432 over the 113 bcuase of that.

However there is an ideal solution for you, the switch from the carrier groupa and the colonial garrisons to the Island bases East of Suez in 67 should meet your needs. The idea was to make use of Gan, Deigo Garcia and Aldabara along with Bahrain and a joint venture with Australia for a new base near Darwin. These would use the large airfields and pre-positioned kit so troops can be flown in from the UK when needed. One aspect of the US aircraft was to make use of the US supply lines which were better suited than having to return to the UK. You could do the same with armour, make use of the US M113 and maybe the M551 untill our own CVR(T) family could complete development as they were designed for the role. You could possibly scrap the Spartan and Striker concepts and stick with the M113 versions whilst having the Scorpion and Scimitar in the recon role have the heavier 432 family for European use by the BOAR where armour rather than air portability were more relevant.

Look forward to seeing how these come out 

[Weaver]

The ballistic protection's about the same though, because the M113's alloy is much thicker than the FV432's steel. The idea that M113 hulls burn because they're alloy is a popular misconception: they're no more prone to fire than comparable vehicles. Both the Bradley and the Warrior have aluminium hulls, so it can't be that bad an idea!

I suspect that one thing counting against the FV432 in export sales was simply that it's driving and commander positions were on the right instead of the left. Ideal for Britain of course, but the intended battlefield was Germany where they drive on the other side.....

[rickshaw]

The British Army did purchase quite a number of M113 special purpose vehicles such as the TLC M548 and the Lance carrier.

[Logan Hartke]

The ballistic protection's about the same though, because the M113's alloy is much thicker than the FV432's steel. The idea that M113 hulls burn because they're alloy is a popular misconception: they're no more prone to fire than comparable vehicles. Both the Bradley and the Warrior have aluminium hulls, so it can't be that bad an idea!

Also, not something that a lot of the aluminum armor critics realize is that the prototypes of the M113 were built in both aluminum and steel.  In the end, testing resulted in the aluminum version being preferred.

Cheers,

Logan

[Weaver]

The British Army did purchase quite a number of M113 special purpose vehicles such as the TLC M548 and the Lance carrier.

And the Tracked Rapier Carrier.

[Weaver]

Balls! Wanted to start painting today but I can't.

I "knew" I could do British Army cammo because I did a AAC Harrier a while back, but when I've looked into it, that was the later black and NATO green scheme (Humbrol Tank Grey and Light Olive) whereas for the early 1960s just-in-service timeframe I want for the M113s, they'd be black and bronze green - Humbrol 75. Which I havn't got. And it's Easter Sunday, so all the shops are shut. Grrrrrrr.........

[Old Wombat]

Be happy, dude!

I'm stuck on Christmas Island & haven't seen a model for over 2 months.

I may well spend my week off (13 days to go, woo-hoo!) just sitting in the shed drooling at my stash... Assuming the missus doesn't kill me 1st.



Guy

[dadlamassu]

Section vehicle with a Saracen turret and a circular rear hatch
Fire-support vehicle with a Scorpion turret (the background is that this turret was designed for the M113... )
Recce vehicle with Scimitar turret
ATGW vehicle with Swingfire

Started cutting and glueing on the turreted ones: photos when there's something worth snapping....

The Aussies use M113 with Scorpion turret


So fitting a Scimitar or Fox turret would not be too great a problem.  Having commanded an FV432 with Fox turret I found it top heavy and I guess the M113 is also top heavy when fitted with a turret.

[Weaver]

Hey thanks for that - I know about the Aussies FSV/MRVs, but your picture's just made me realise something: mine needs a barrel lock, and I can't nick the one off the Scorpion 'cos it's moulded on - hmmmm.

It looks distinctly top-heavy without the Aussie floatation boxes which mask it a bit by increasing the apparent width.

Progress pics. I left off the RADIAC mast supplied with the Scorpion because apparently it was hardly ever fitted:



The ex-JB M113 FSV uses a wide disc on the bottom of the turret, but the Airfix Scorpion uses a small pin, so some adaption was neccessary. Luckily, three sizes of concentric Evergreen tube fitted all the relevent holes and pegs:

Widest tube sits under the top plate supporting the middle tube which sits in the hole, reducing it's diameter:



Narrowest tube sits around the turret pin and voila:

[rickshaw]

The side floatation panels are the same as used on the M163 Vulcan SPAA system.  The front was also used on other M113 variants in Europe.

Your FSV will also need the driver's hatch to rotate sideways, over the standard rearwards opening.   That way he can open it no matter what position the turret is in.

[Old Wombat]

Weaver has used the Aussie FSV version as a base, so it already has a side-rotating hatch, just an earlier version than the one shown in the photo. IIRC that version popped up 1st to clear the periscope in the hatch before rotating out.



Guy

[Army of One]

Agreat work Harold.....keep it up.....

[Weaver]

Cheers folks!

RARDEN turret now done:






I'm still debating how to do a Swingfire vehicle, partly because I'm still debating how to do the section vehicle....


Section Vehicle Options:

1. Use a standard M113 hull and just fit a Saracen turret in place of the commander's hatch.

2. Use an FSV hull, cut the entire FSV top plate out and fit a new one with an AIFV-style layout, that is, commander's hatch behind the driver, turret to the commander's right and a circular hatch (spare driver's hatch) at centre-rear with a 3/4 skate ring around it.


Swingfire Vehicle Options:

1. Ferret Mk.5 style: scratchbuild a 1-man turret with 1 x MG and 4 x elevating Swingfire boxes (Using this turret on the Scorpion hull was the original scheme for the Striker). External reloading.

2. Striker style: elevating box of 5 x Swingfires on top of, or recessed into, the roof at the rear. External reloading.

3. FV438 style: raised superstructure with telescopic firing sight and 2 x independently elevating single Swingfire boxes. Under-armour reloading.

4. Original idea #A: if the section vehicle layout is standard M113, then fit 2 x single Swingfire boxes in the back ends of the sponsons. They'd elevate to fire, the blast would go out of the back, and they'd muzzle-reload from under armour in the lowered position. Fuel tanks would have to be relocated though, and they couldn't go in the customary external positions to either side of the ramp.

5. Original idea #B: if the section vehicle is AIFV style, delete the turret in favour of an MG on the commander's hatch, then fit 1 x twin Swingfire box (vertically stacked) inside the main hull line at the right rear. It elevates to fire (well away from the cupola, which is on the left) and reloads under armour like #A. The rear ramp is replaced by a fixed panel with exhaust ports to the right and the original side-hinged door to the right.

[Martin H]

Section Vehicle Options:

1. Use a standard M113 hull and just fit a Saracen turret in place of the commander's hatch.

2. Use an FSV hull, cut the entire FSV top plate out and fit a new one with an AIFV-style layout, that is, commander's hatch behind the driver, turret to the commander's right and a circular hatch (spare driver's hatch) at centre-rear with a 3/4 skate ring around it.

Option 1 for the section vehicle, option 2 would be more like a troop commanders vehicle or lightly armed recci wagon.

AS for the Swingfire unit, just mirror what really happened with the 432.