thats a good point,but,what is it usefull for? if it isent good for anything,its a bad vhiecle. IT DOSNT EVEN DESERVE THE TITLE APC-
ARMORED PERSONALL CARRIER-
ITS NOT ARMORED.......! THAT THING CAN GET SHOT UP BY AK47S!!!

Originally Posted by sherman105

THAT THING CAN GET SHOT UP BY AK47S!!!

Alright, now that's just crazy talk.

im not kidding. the M113 is a deathtrap in a firefight....

Actually Im fairly sure it can stop AK rounds

It stops AK47 rounds..

As I have said earlier, we bought an old M113 in Lebanon, and used it on the firing range...

It stopped 7,62x51mm without a problem..
Both from out Handguns (AG3) and machine guns (MG3).
12,7mm Multi Purpose penetrated the first wall, but stopped in the rear wall.
12,7mm APS (Armor Piercing Super) penetrated both walls....

The M113 series is not bad for what they are/was intended for.

It's no Tank, but it's ok as an APC, and it was not made for Urban Warfare..
We use it for a lot of different tasks here in Norway:
Forward Observer vehicle, Command Post, Armored Ambulance etc..
And we are upgrading several of them now, with a new and modern interior (FO and CP).

As i said,"Armored" is not a right term,maybe-"LVPC"-
"Less Volnrauble Personall Carrier".....
It should be able to protect at least against 0.5,for pits sake....

TYPE 90II/ 96 / 98 / 99

Powerplant: 8-cylinder turbocharged diesel
Max Speed: 37 mph
Max Weight: 48 tons
Armament:

one 125mm smooth bore gun
one 12.7mm machine gun
one 7.62mm machine gun

Nice one compared to the Russians and Americans

solomonwanca: If you mean modern systems shuch as the M1A2, Leopard II and Challenger 2, perhaps, but it is a bit slow compared to them. Which country is this one from Russia or China?

Moving along to other nominations:

Char B1 Heavy Tank - a rotten 1937 French design that reverted to some of the worst features of WWI tanks while introducing some bad features all its own:

1. Mechanically complex and broke down a lot.
2. Tall (2.79 m), which made it very hard to hide or move.
3. Underpowered for its size and therefore slow at 28 kph max speed.
4. Had a range of only 180 km, which forced frequent refueling.
5. Placed the main exhaust vent for the engine on the left side of the hull, creating a huge vulnerabilty
6. Worst Feature: Forced the commander to double as the gunner and loader for the 47mm gun.

It did have a few good features, such as respectable armor, a fair 47mm gun and a radio, but these where overwhelmed by the bad ones.

M103 Heavy Tank. The US answer to the T10 and IS series Soviet heavies, but in a new and very bad way. It featured a very good 120mm main gun (based on a US 120mm/4.7" antiaircraft gun of WWII), but combined that with poor reliability, huge weight (56.6 metric tons, as much or more than the M1A1), short range (130 km), slow (max speed of 34 kph) and huge size (11.3 m long witht the gun forward, 3.8 m wide and 2.9m tall! - try concealing that outside of a barn). Phased out very quickly in the 1960s as a real dog. :P

FV214 Conqueror Heavy Tank. A British entry that was almost as bad as the M103, with most of the same bad features. Featured slightly better range (155km), but was even heavier at 64.8 metric tones. Also phased out in the 1960s.

German WWII Panzerjager Tiger "Elefant" TANK DESTROYER.
Slow, with no rotating turret, no MGs against infantry, unreliable, heavy.

The German Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus was even worse...
It was defined as a Super Heavy Tank, 188 tonnes (metric)!!
A mobile fortress...
Hitler did originally order 150 of those, but only one was produced (of obvious reasons....)

Speed:13-20 Kph
Lenght: 10meters
Height: 3.6m
width: 3.6m
Armament: 128mm KwK 44 L/55 & 75mm KwK 44 L/36.5
1 x 7.92mm MG34

Check out www.achtungpanzer.com for more info