Ukraine designing a new APC – based on what?
Ukraine is designing a new armored personnel carrier, driven by their years of combat against the Russians. No exactly a shocking development, given the amount of vehicular casualties they must have taken, but what they are basing the new design on is a bit shocking.
The M113.
Yep, the old aluminum box that millions have ridden in, worked on, cussed at – it’s been in our inventory since 1961. Old, yes, but it’s gonna have a new grandkid soon – after 65 years. Puts it in the same category as the B-52, the Ma Deuce, the A-10… the damn things just keep going, and going, and going…
Ukraine has begun testing a new homegrown armored personnel carrier, a tracked vehicle named Skif (Scythian, an ancient warrior tribe that also lived in parts of modern Ukraine).
“First and foremost, we relied on our contacts with the military, our understanding of their needs, and our experience with the use of wheeled vehicles on the battlefield,” UkrArmoTech CEO Hennadii Khirhii told the Ukrainian Defense Express website. “Active combat operations in Ukraine have demonstrated the need for a significant number of armored vehicles to ensure and maintain the mobility of units and formations of the Armed Forces and Defense Forces.”
The design of the Skif is heavily influenced by the U.S.-developed M113, a Cold War-era tracked APC, many hundreds of which have been supplied to Ukraine since February 2022.
Despite its age, it seems the M113 has been a success in Ukrainian hands, offering a useful combination of reliability, maintainability, troop-carrying capacity, and off-road mobility.
Seems there is an entire cottage industry (OK, possibly a poor term for making armor, but…) around the M113
According to reports, the Skif makes use of off-the-shelf components and assemblies from foreign manufacturers involved in the production of armored vehicles that are “descendants” of the M113.
It’s unclear if this implies that the Skif uses components from Western manufacturers that have built the M113 and its derivatives, or if the Ukrainian vehicle employs parts from other Western-made APCs. Noteworthy is the fact that members of the broader M113 family have been built under license in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey, as well as several other countries outside Europe.
With the aluminum hull, the Skif weighs around 15 tons and is driven by a 360-horsepower diesel engine. The modular design means that different engines can be installed, for example, if more power is needed for a steel hull, or when fitted with heavier weapons.
Armor protection is in line with NATO STANAG 4569 Level 4 over the frontal section (withstanding, for example, 14.5mm machine gun fire, or a 155mm artillery projectile detonating at 25 meters), and Level 3 on the sides and rear (resistant to 7.62mm gunfire, or a 155mm artillery projectile detonating at 60 meters). Mine protection below the hull is rated at Levels 3a and 3b. The vehicle is expected to withstand the detonation of around 13 pounds of explosives under the hull or tracks.TWZ
Looks like its modular design allows it to be configured however works best for a given environment – smoke generators, drone “cope cages” armored screens, EW packages – and more.
Supposedly the Ukes like tracks over wheeled vehicles for better traction in winter mud. (Kind of surprising they didn’t spec wider tracks for that?) What’s old becomes new again, indeed. Read the article.
Category: Ukraine
I remember when we fielded the A3 model. It was awesome, had a steering yoke instead of laterals and a pretty decent engine, especially when we removed the governors!
The old puke box. I remember a particularly active day at NTC where me and three others ended up barfing our guts out in the back of one. All the crazy motion combined with lack of visual orientation definitely makes you nauseous.
Never had that problem in a Bradley for some reason.
Probably was the driver. A good one can make all the difference. Had a really shitty one in my platoon down at Hood. I was hanging on to one of the loop handles for dear life and he slammed that Brad some how some way and I came up out of my seat pivoting on the loop handle and slammed my head into top of the compartment and then was slammed back down in my seat. Yes I had my helmet on, but I’ll be damned if it wasn’t one of the few times I’ve ever seen stars. I laughed my ass off when he got sent to BN to become the BCs driver. That lasted one trip to the field. Heard he slammed the BC over into his gunner.
Worst ride I ever had in a tracked vehicle was in an M60 tank in IOBC at Ft. Benning. We went about 35 mph over uneven rough ground. I was bounced around like a pinball.
When I was an FNG my unit was playing at the Baumholder “recreational” area and my platoon sgt. decided to let me get a little experience driving an M113. We were on our way back to the “barracks” one evening and I was following another track. I was lagging behind and decided to accelerate to catch up. It was downhill, and there was a bump on the left side of the trail. I hit that bump going about as fast as I could, and I know the left side came off the ground, maybe the right side too. Being young and stupid I thought nothing of it and continued at a high rate of speed. When we got back to the parking area my Platoon Sgt. gave me a brief(?) but informative lecture on my substandard driving habits. Evidently I came very close to flipping that beast. Looking back on it with a little more experience I concur.
Right before I got to my first unit, an unlicensed medic was driving a 113 while towing a water buffalo. It was full and he was going too fast down a hill and it rolled. The driver died and the TC survived. When I got to Carson, they did not mess around with training, licensing, helmets and TC requirements for all wheeled vehicles.
When I was in Germany a guy who drove one of the Company HQ tracks had a three inch scar from one side of his chin to the other. Seems he neglected to make sure his hatch was securely latched open and when he made a hard stop it swung shut, hitting the top of his CVC helmet and splitting his chin open on the hatch rim.
Korea, Camp Casey, our maintenance train was leaving the motor pool and they had to go down a steep sloop to ford shit creek, the drivers hatch smacked the Sgt who was driving and he broke his nose when his face was driven into the edge of the hatch.
Welp, if it works for what ya want, there is no reason to redesign the wheel per se. Keeps costs down too.
Any modern AT ammunition would destroy a M113-derived vehicle. Heck, even an unguided AT4 would punch through that armor.
This is like betting the ENY doesn’t have anti-armor.
Might as well get a Toyota Hilux.
It will only work to move personnel behind the front lines anyways.
That aluminum just doesn’t have the stopping power of steel.
From what I understand, APCs are used in Ukraine as protection against drones and drone dropped grenades, not to protect against armor.
Any modern AT ammunition will also destroy a Bradley. Perhaps the Israeli Namer APC, at 60+ tons and based on the Merkava tank, might survive a hit by AT ammunition, but no other APC I know of can.
Surviving AT rounds wasn’t its design philosophy. It’s not a main battle vehicle, just a better option than trucks or leather personnel carriers.
It’s a taxi to the battlefield. It protects from minor mayhem on the way. Tracked, it doesnt need improved roads.
Used as such, works great. Infantry fight best -out- of vehicles. The main problem with IFVs is putting a squad in a kill box.
I was signed for four M113’s on a hand receipt when I was a rifle platoon leader in the 509th in Germany. Later, I had M106’s when I was the weapons platoon leader. That mortar carrier had the diesel engine which was more reliable.
I remember when my platoon switched from gasoline powered M113s to the M106. Amazing difference, especially in mileage. I still wonder why the Army didn’t switch to diesel long before.
I suspect the P&L system was set up with them burning the mogas of many other vehicles. Our 113’s were frequently broke down. But those 106’s were very reliable.
” better traction in winter mud. “
That depends. I have seen an M113 slip and slide trying to climb a moderately sloping muddy hill while an M151 “Jeep” made it to the top quite handily.
Don’t forget the M113 can swim. Not very well, I agree,
but if they have to cross a small stream … assuming the seals are good and the bilge pump is working … they could get to the other side.
So there’s that.
You’re making this WAY too complicated. I’m pretty sure our dearly departed King of Battle would have a much simpler solution using the following logic:
The Navy has ships, right?
Ships float, right?
The Navy had the P-3 Orion, right?
Basically a C-130 with the engines mounted upside down, right?
The solution is obvious…invert the engine in the M113 and that muh-fugger will be well and truly amphibious. You’re welcome. 🤣🍺
Even our disliked stuff beats Russky equipment– Ukraine knows.
Yep…a floor buffer would mop the floor with a T-72. See what I did there?🤣