M113 Lynx photos needed for book project
 

Hello All,
I am a freelance writer for Military Vehicle Magazine and have decided to try to put together my first book project. The vehicle I have chosen is the M113 1/2 Lynx as I have access to a fully restored example for detailed pictures.

I am looking for any photos or info any members may have of the vehicle. Any one who can contribute photos or info will receive credit for the photos and sent a copy of the book.

I have contacted:

Ontario Regiment Museum (got a manual)
Bolvington (Swim test photos)
Canadian National Archives (Some pictures


Thanks,
Silvio Iacuone

Hi Silvio

When I saw just the thread heading, immediately thought of responding by referring down to someone down in Rhode Island then opened the thread and saw that it was you asking the question.

Hope everyone on MLU with photos and information on M113 Lynx family of vehicles will chime in.

Looking forward to seeing the results of your efforts.

Cheers Phil

Lynxes
 

There are a few Lynx on display in Canada. The one closest to me is an outdoor display at Connaught Ranges. I attached a snap.

One interesting user of the Canadian Lynxes is the Islamic Republic of Iran. When the brigade closed down in Germany, the Lynxes were deemed surplus (they were going to be retired in Canada anyways). They were stripped of the engines, because these parts had a civilian application. At some point the vehicles were sold to a Dutch scrapyard. From there the Canadians had no more interest or issues. From there the Iranians somehow got their hands on some or all of the Lynxes. I attached the only pictures I have.

Finally, spend $5 and request all the vehicle information from the Department of National Defence. There is a more expansive instruction on the CFR request thread.

To the best of my knowledge, it was not a civilian application, but rather the DND provided used engines for the remainder of the M113 fleet. I noted a few TFRs from Bosnia where they complained of receiving used engines which were unserviceable as replacements for the M113s.

This source of supply remains today with used parts being removed from LSVWs and MLVWs during the dismantling process at the prisons. From my experience, the guys signing the condition and serviceability tags are not too discerning.

Lynx
 

The Lynx was not a standardized U.S. Army vehicle, therefore it did not have an M number, even though it did share a number of components with the M113, M548, and M577 series of vehicles. I own a number of Lynx publications and have yet to find one that refers to the vehicle as M113 1/2.

The correct name for the vehicle is: Carrier, Command and Reconnaissance Full Tracked, Armoured, Lynx.

What is a TFR?

Interesting, I can however tell you that our data plate shows M113 1/2 or Recce vehicle or something similar, will check tomorrow.

I did a site search but with no results, where is the CFR request thread?

Lol, thanks. I have today made contact with 2 former crew members who have agreed to help.

Thanks everyone.

http://www.mapleleafup.net/forums/sh...ad.php?t=14402

(People with legitimate access can access a maintenance record database. As of a few weeks ago, disclosure rules were reinforced and those people should not misuse their privilages.)

Lynx Data Plate
 

If the Lynx data plate does indeed have M113 1/2 on it, then that would be the only recorded instance in which the long established US Ordnance M series list was not adhered to by using a fraction. It would also be the only time that official publications did not refer to the M number in the title.

If it were to have an M number, then M113E3 or even M114E1 would be more in line with the sequence.

Agreed. I have seen the EDR pages. The name is CARRIER RECCE LYNX
The VMO name is CARRIER COMMAND AND RECCE ARMD LYNX FULL TRKD
The Vehicle Class is ARMOURED COMBAT VEHICLE
The Vehicle type is LYNX.

If it was going to have a fraction M-series number, it would have been listed there.

It is a technical failure report. They are like a Unsatisfactory Condition Report (UCR), but for the technical end. I had to fill out a number of TFRs over my military career, and even did one as a civilian contractor. The good thing with them is that they let a Life Cycle Material Manager know when there are repeated failures in a fleet that will demand their attention. As well, it can be a way for the mechanic in the field to get a higher level of technical expertise and investigation to result in solutions to technical problems.

While they are often replaced these days with an email query, those do not end up on a TFR summary. The summaries came out every quarter and listed all the TFRs submitted in that quarter along with the solutions if they were already found. By reading the TFR summary, a mechanic could occasionally quickly solve some of life's mysteries.

An example of this was when I worked in 2PPCLI tool crib. A fellow mechanic came to me asking for the front axle engagement (air) switch on the MLVW dash because it was leaking oil on the driver's foot. I told him that instead of the switch, what he needed to do was change the breather on top of the transfer case. He did that and it worked. I then had his MCpl at my counter asking how come I knew this crap. It was in the TFR summary for that quarter. Apparently, the main gaskets on the transfer cases were de-composing and plugging up the breather (vent) valve, causing pressure to build up in the transfer case. This in turn caused oil to run out the change switch on the dash. A new switch would do nothing.

How I do ramble on......I must be getting old.

Rambling
 

Rob, it was not rambling but an excellent example that highlighted the reasoning for all of the reporting and the various levels of reporting.

Looking up the designation on Google, it appears on a number of hits, and from this link below, it indicates that M113 1/2 was given by the makers, FMC and not a US military designation.
http://tanknutdave.com/armoured-comm...sance-vehicle/

Well then I'll ramble a little more.

TFRs are now submitted electronically, and the summaries are also shown electronically.

On the one I submitted in theater, we had a preliminary answer a month or so later. I had observed a very dangerous condition of unusual failure on several pieces of a new type equipment. We would repair the problem, but did not know the cause, nor if the problem was going to re-appear. So when I brought it up at the weekly production meeting, I was directed to submit the TFR. A month later we emailed to find if there was a preliminary finding. The LCMM had Petawawa check for the same condition on their vehicles, and the same problem was there, although yet undetected. There was a powder around the worn area. The powder was submitted to a lab along with the failed parts. It turned out the manufacturer of the vehicles had done something that did not have a purpose, and it was causing the failure. The solution given was to remove the part, clean the area of an epoxy, and install new parts.

So this example shows the importance of the TFR. A fleetwide problem was found early, a solution was found using a lab instead of guesswork, and a solution was fielded in less than a month.

Two years later I returned on my third contract to theater, and out of the blue one day I received an email that the solution to my TFR had been found and the case was to be considered closed. So apparently the need to "tidy up" was not as pressing as the need to find the solution.

We normally had the direct ear of the LCMMs when in theater, so the TFR chain was not always followed. Often, solutions to smaller problems were found in hours if not days. However the problem with that was that the same problems could likely be at units on Canada, so the distribution of information was not quite as simple. These days, with DRMIS, it appears the LCMMs open work orders for special inspections for each vehicle in a fleet of vehicles with results posted to the work order. The LCMMs can then review the work orders and poll for their answers.

Am I rambling now Ed?

Rambling Mk II
 

No not at all, but if you have time and if there is one in your area can you crack open a Lynx and take a photo of the data plate?

I'm at the shop right now, and we have one out back, but it's -25 right now so no promises. I take it the 113-1/2 is the query?

Lynx
 

Only -25C, I have heard that is T shirt weather out west... Yes, I am curious as to what is on a Lynx data plate.

Well that was cold. Any colder and I would have had to put on a hat or gloves.

Here are some shots Ed. No M113-1/2 anywhere. They do include CR-2 in the serial number so perhaps that is more the model number? Command Recce 2nd model? That is assuming the Dutch models were first. I note when I look up the NSN for a lynx it gives the reference number to model CR2C1.

Data Plates
 

Rob, thank you for taking the time to photograph the data plates. Yes, the Canadian Lynx are all CR-2-## with the last number or numbers indicating the individual vehicle in the production sequence. Like you, I believe the CR-1s were the Dutch vehicles although I have not confirmed this.

So much for M113 1/2.

We can only assume there was nothing good on TV to keep you indoors. :)

AFAIK, the manufacturer's (FMC) designation was M113 C&R (Command & Reconnaissance).

The Royal Netherlands Army designated it as M113 C&V. "C&V" stands for Commando & Verkenning, which is Dutch for Command & Reconnaissance. The first 250 manufactured went to the Netherlands in 1966, the rest went to Canada so you could be right about the CR1 and CR2.

First picture shows one in preservation at the National Military Museum, the second on shows the fate of most of them - range target! Although a number have been exported to Chile, I believe.

Attachment 78386 Attachment 78387

The whole extended family is over for a late Christmas dinner and activities. Going to the shop was a good escape. I'm not one for hustle and bustle.

We had a plate on it from FMC that said M113 1/2. That plate was removed during the rebuild and I have not seen it since.

I said M113 1/2 Lynx for a few reasons. Some people know under different names. The Ontario Regiment tank museum has it listed on there website as
" M113 Command and Reconnaissance Vehicle - Lynx", it is listed in some books as M113 1/2 (FMC Designation), I have even seen it listed as M113 C&R.

I posted it as M113 Lynx because I am trying to acquire photos and info needed and I put down what I thought was a common name of the vehicle.

A batch were exported to Bahrain in the Persian Gulf. I spotted a group in a parade in someone's photo gallery. Today searching again, I can't find any clear statement. (I wonder if they were retired in good order, and transferred to 'other parties' for the civil war in Yemen?) Edit - Found it!

https://milinme.wordpress.com/2013/0...e-m113-family/

I was holding back on posting this but after Terry's post, take a look at the link here to a book. The publisher appears to be an official organisation, and book subject on vehicle trials lists the M113 1/2.
http://www.amazon.com/MUDLARK-Tests-.../dp/B0007J20AC

I recall you posting that link - those are certainly ex-RNLA M113 C&R's and YPR-785's! I think they were sold to Egypt as well.

I hear you thinking: YPR-785? Well, that's the Dutch designation for the AIFV (Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle) based on the M113 - another variant for which no US military designation exists as they were not used by the US.

M113 1/2 was the FMC "in house" designation for the Lynx whilst they were developing and offering it around, quite a few countries trialed it.

Once they produced the prototypes it became "Vehicle Command and Reconnaissance" (nothing else) and that is what is on the data plate of that vehicle.
The 2 documented prototypes were known to FMC as "C&R 1" and "C&R 2", both of which were to the original layout with the observer seated to the right of the driver.

Then, when the Dutch bought it, the designation changed to:
"Vehicle, Command and Reconnaissance, Full Tracked, Armored, M113A1 C & R"
Serial numbers beginning with CR1-00XX. Apparently they were hoping to sell thousands......
The Dutch kept with the as built side by side layout, but upgraded to an auto cannon turret for the Commander.

Then for the Canadian contract:
"Carrier, Command and Reconnaissance, Full Tracked, Armored (Lynx).

Nobody seems to know how and when the name "Lynx" came to the vehicle. The issue with the Canadian data plates is that they all appear to be re-issues at time of rebuild, so it is unknown if they are spares supplied by the manufacturer or Canadian produced, thus if the name came from FMC or not.

Not wishing to hijack this thread but actually add something, does anyone know where the British trials vehicle of the Lynx family ended up after the auction at the Littlefield Collection?

That would be a start point in a book for my money

Robin