Why are Gavin's such amazing vehicles? With over 80,000

File: SuperGavin.jpg (73KB, 781x580px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 781x580px

>>31800041
Here is a proposed and likely to be adopted airborne version of the Gavin. This vehicle could take an airbase by itself by landing on their run way.The versatility of this vehicle is astounding to say the least. I bet an M2 tracked vehicle wouldn't even come close to doing this. Only thing the M2 does better is consume more of the logistics line.

>>31800093
As for the stryker. Those in the U.S. Army that think that they are being "innovative" and the "advance guard" for positive change "transformation" because they want to slap a computer into an immobile, vulnerable rubber-tired armored car because it LOOKS DIFFERENT and LOOKS SEXY so they can claim that they were great "visionaries" are actually going to handicap the U.S. Army with less vehicular mobility and the resultant foot-slogging to try to protect the armored cars from destruction along roads will bring us disaster in the next war. The true visionaries were the WWII and Korea blooded combat men who created the air-transportable, amphibious, all-terrain mobile M113 for a truly "transformed" U.S. Army of thinking, smart, self-reliant warriors not current politically-correct, blind-obedient robots micromanaged from afar by top-down, stay-in-your-lane high-tech bureaucracy. If in our rush to exalt ourselves and our own ideas, our ego prevents us from recognizing the good ideas from others, especially the combat-proven and enduring culminations of many people's ideas from the past---the M113, the B-52, the M2 .50 caliber, the C-130....than the disease of arrogance reflects in our own mirror.

File: gavins-big.jpg (212KB, 1000x863px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1000x863px

>>31800107
Here is a comic someone made. Really hammers home that M113 Gavin is the Army's version of the B-52--a combat-proven, durable platform we should be upgrading to get "transformational" capabilities not pissing our money away on inferior lav3Stryker rubber-tired deathtraps

File: AMPV_Armored_Multi-Purpose_Vehicles_BAE_Systems_United_States_American_defense_industry_US_army_640_001.jpg (66KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 640x427px

It's time to stop posting, Mike.

File: pvlHW65.jpg (620KB, 1411x1136px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 1411x1136px

Fuck off Sparky.

>>31800041
>Why are Gavin's such amazing vehicles?
>Gavins
>when will this meme die
No such vehicle in the US inventory.
Source:me, former 113 driver in the Army. Nobody ever called them that, and I didn't even hear that name untill I had been out for years

>>31800953
>this kills the 113

>>31800041
Late model M113 is reliable for a light tracked APC. That's what's good about it.

Beyond that it is unremarkable.

File: 1464012196340.jpg (86KB, 2542x1429px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 2542x1429px

>aluminium

>>31800959
Right...
General Gavin is spinning in his grave right now. Not that your pog opinion matters

>>31800953
Scuttled after a mobility kill so the enemy couldnt get their hands on one.

>>31801326
Soviet 12.7mm could literally penetrate the front armour. LAVs and all derivatives are superior due to mobility, modern weapondary and not having fucking deviant art cartoons made about it.

>>31801310
POG? can I choke you out with my blue cord? or how about I gouge your eyes out with my CIB?

>>31801310
Hello, Mike Sparks.

>>31801326
Then why haven't the m2s been taken?

>>31801363
>Modern weaponry
Why we need to reinvest in the M113. It is much more capable. Also it's there to enchanted mobility of our troops, not to fight in the front line. It's why the Bradley failed. Maybe you should watch pentagon wars and educate yourself.
>lav
>superior mobility
Enjoy your Canadian made death trap. While the M113 is zooming by in boggy terrain, the lav will be immobile and all of the dismounted troops will be shot up attempting to free it
>>31801379
You should probably return both to the px before you're caught wearing awards you didn't earn.

>a couple millimeters of aluminum, a literal box
You do know RPGs and IEDs exist right? and are like, prolific.

>>31801393
Because they don't actually see any fighting. They're hidden far behind the line to conceal the fact their ill suited machines only in the military because of some bribes. Kills made by them are highly exaggerated.

>>31801451
Pentagon wars is satirical you dip, its an overly dramatized story written by an already biased author. Its impartial to the point of inaccuracy.

>>31801491
Uh huh right. Coming from the guy who unironically supports lav and M2 vehicles. Both of which are unneeded since the Gavin fulfills this role.

>>31800985
Unsure if they fixed the later models, but I've heard similar accounts from a 113 driver and mechanic that the the vietnam era ones were fucking deathtraps. Any explosion underneath the thing (like from a mine) would ignite the fuel and flood it into the passenger cabin.

File: m113a3.jpg (142KB, 1093x480px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1093x480px

>>31801547
later models moved the fuel to the outside of the vehicle as seen in pick related. the older version had a fuel cell inside the vehicle on the left side. if you sat on the bench on the drivers side near the rear, your back rested against it.

>>31801451
>While the M113 is zooming by in boggy terrain

Why are you driving through a swamp, Mike? Why don't they just drop you out of the plane onto the other side?

Out of all the memes this is the most cancerous. It just needs to die.

>>31804158
>Why don't they just drop you out of the plane onto the other side?
Unfortunately once a Gavin is deployed it needs to either be refitted so it can fly on its own again or be loaded into a C-130. I was just using it as an example as to why Lavs are objectively inferior military vehicles.

>>31800959
The M60 isn't aactually designated Patton, but is called that. The SR-71 isn't actually designated Blackbird, but is called that. Why not call the M113 a Gavin?

>>31800041
daily reminder: it isn't called a gavin. never was. never will be. over and out.

>>31806717
M48 and M60 were named after america's "great" armor general. SR-71 is black and it flies. The M113 has nothing to do with the 82nd airborne division commander nor was it used by an airborne division ever.

>>31801512
>>31801491
>>31801451
The Bradley didn't fail, what the movie fails to mention (or intentionally omits) is the fact that during development of a new APC the Soviets designed and field the BMP, putting the balance of power for mechanized infantry in the hands of the Warsaw Pact. So yes, that's why there were so many revisions, to keep pace with Soviet designs and to implement newer tech into US Army service.

>>31806762
No. M46, M47, and M48 are all Patrons (the M48 was the Patton III). The M60 has no official moniker.

>>31806736
>Schmitz left the defense department in September 2005 and was accused of poor leadership for preventing investigations into war contracts given to several George W. Bush administration officials and having conflicts of interest with lobbyists
yeah i trust this politician/lawyer with accurate military terminology. literally the only people that call the 113 a gavin are no nothing brigade and above faggots from the 90s who sat in this shit cans while everyone else had an omar bradely.

>>31806781
work on your reading comprehension. nobody gives a fuck about official names; and gavin isn't the official or unofficial name for the m113.

>>31806825
>nobody gives a fuck about official names

If that were true, the M60 would never be referred to as a Patton, and the SR-71 would never be called Blackbird.

>>31807194
except those names caught on during development then entered the vernacular of both the military and the public. The M113 literally never had a name until Mike Sparks thought of it.

File: 1462089112636.gif (259KB, 407x405px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 407x405px

>>31800041
>M113
>"Gavins"

>>31800041
I haven't seen a Gavin Troll Thread in years, this makes me happy

>>31800093
I hope they do adopt a flying Gavin someday. Combining a proven and sturdy apc with the ability to launch and land it self can give such a huge mobility advantage over what it already does for our troops. Something that the Bradley has failed to do since its inception.

>tfw if a vehicle actually gets named the Gavin I'll never be able to take it seriously because of this shit

>>31807194
Those are called that because people actually used those names, whereas Gavin is the result of one severely autistic parachute rigger trying to force a meme.

>>31809800
>whereas Gavin is the result of many units showing gratitude towards a great general by naming a prolific vehicle after him
ftfy

>ITT autism

>>31811932
but they didn't

>>31800041

The next time the Army introduces a new APC, I hope they name it "James Gavin" just to piss off sparky. Actually, there is an opportunity for that coming up pretty soon.