Just stumble across this on Wikipedia.
Never seen something like this before. Does somebody has the official name of it? Or does anybody have any info why to put those mines on the side of a APC? Or is it just that you dont get ambushed from the side or is it when you are surrounded and then just blow the mines up?
The description of the picture from Wiki is below the pic.

A Senior Airman (standing) and an Airman 1st Class patrol in an M-113 Armored Personnel Carrier at the Theater Internment Facility at Camp Bucca, Iraq on February 10, 2008. The Airmen are deployed from Robins Air Force Base, Ga., and are assigned to the 886th Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron's quick response force. The QRF responds to issues within the TIF in which a show of force or escalation of force is required beyond the capabilities for the TIF's guard force. Note the claymore mines on the side of the vehicle.

Thanks for any info.

Joker

Damn... either they took some explosives out or the thing could possibly take out your own ride! I know they're supposed to blow up only one way but the back blast on that thing is pretty evil.

I have no clue about the backblast of a claymore and if it can penetrate an uparmored M113. But maybe the rectangular boxes that the claymores are inside are made of armor plates too, or at least the back of that box.
I made a small reserarch about Camp Bucca and I´ve found out that it was or is packed with prisoners and they are short on security personnel, then I´ve thought about this:
What if this M113 is like a guardsman in a normal jail? The guardman in a usual jail dont cary any guns and the M113 dont has a gun mounted. If there is a revolt the crew of the M113 just close there hatch and they are safe and drive away or sit it out while the prisoners dont get their hands on a weapon. If they get in to much trouble they blow up the claymores.
Im not shure but sounds not bad to me.

Joker

That is a great idea.

Personally I don't think it's a bad idea at all. Might even be a good idea on regular armored vehicles as well such as tanks.

I don't know if the back blast of a claymore would penetrate M-113 armor but it wouldn't have to necessarily penetrate in order to incapacitate the occupants. It would have to be toned down I think. But I'm no explosives expert (just knew how to use my claymore mines, not ALL the intricate details) and my experience with armored vehicles is very limited.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Personally I don't think it's a bad idea at all. Might even be a good idea on regular armored vehicles as well such as tanks.

I don't know if the back blast of a claymore would penetrate M-113 armor but it wouldn't have to necessarily penetrate in order to incapacitate the occupants. It would have to be toned down I think. But I'm no explosives expert (just knew how to use my claymore mines, not ALL the intricate details) and my experience with armored vehicles is very limited.

I guess if they properly enforce containers where the Claymore is inserted, there is no danger of damage to vehicle or crew. It's just like active armor containers, placed on the armor of tanks...

only problem being the M113 has all the armor protection of a sardine can