FV432 vs M113

[uk 75]

The venerable FV432 and M113 troop carriers have been around for more than half a century.
I have never seen a realistic comparison of the types from the soldiers' point of view. Anyone know more?

 

[Foo Fighter]

My 432 was an ambulance equipped MK 1-1 (Petrol) and was a bit of a hound but mainly because when I signed for it, it had an engine that had been condemned two years prior.I never did get the engine properly fixed (Cracked cylinder head) and it gave no end of trouble. As for the M113, well those I know who were equipped with them hated them with a passion we never got near. They never quantified what made it so bad but reliability was often quoted as abysmal. The one ton land rover ambulance I had was not as bad engine wise but not good either.

 

[Rickshaw]

The Australian Army carried out trials in the early 1960s between the two vehicles before adopting the M113. The M113 was judged the winner basically because it was considered more maneuverable. You could lay its left side against trees and execute a point turn, which you weren't able to do with the FV432. The M113 proved very popular with the troops. So much so that the Australian Army decided to remanufacture them in the 1990s and created the AS4 version which was stretched by one wheel station and had a new turret.

 

[Foo Fighter]

The 432 was heavier, shorter but taller. The diesel was apparently a good drive but my petrol was a bone shaker. Even with the limitations of the engine in mine, it was more reliable than our Chieftains. Not hard though. Steel rather than alluminium may have made it less agile.