Originally Posted by William F. Owen
In addition to Wilf's point re concentrating your troops into one big fat target, you lose flexibility.
I.e. you end up with one manoeuvre element instead of say 3 or 4.
If you want to debuss your troops simultneously you have to debuss them in a bit platoon gaggle, instead of in a formation more like what they would normally deploy in.
No bounding overwatch in less than coy size movements, you can cover less frontage while mounted, you can cover/advance on fewer axis, you have fewer mounted weapons/sensors, less redundancy in both mobility and other areas (weapons, sensors, comms).
All of this I think would make deploying a platoon as a semi independent element fairly unattractive. Just too many eggs in one basket - any problems and your whole platoon is stranded/neutralised and you suddenly have a big hole in your coy.
And such a platoon/half platoon sized vehicle would be a big, heavy, probably less agile target, especially if up armoured/built to namer type levels of protection. Imagine an LVTP7 with 6" steel RHA....
I personally think that the gains of fewer, larger vehicles would be few, and the downsides many.
If it weren't for the various costs I think more smaller vehicles (especially if organic to the inf) might be interesting, especially with the patrol based infantry discussed elsewhere (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...&highlight=pbi).
Thought as much; no advantages whatsoever. Really makes one wonder what the hell was going through the minds of the M44 designersMakes it's cancellation all the more understandable though
. Wonder what happens to the EFV?
That's a big ol' vehicle/target by anyone's standards.
And by freeing the APC or even IFV from the INF fireteam/platoon, you actually facilitate, not hamper, these exact missions. Fire support can still be an option if needed, just on the PLT or CO level, not the fireteam level. Might mean you don't get to have a private "truck" with your own cooler and pouge bait however.
Reed
The mortar tracks were dedicated mortar tracks with built in basplates (M125s I think - equivilants in any case).Sir,
thanks muchly() for your detailed reply! But.....
The APC squadron owned the M125s, but the infantry owned the mortars (i.e. the mortars were from the mortar of the infantry's support coy) and could fire them mounted or dismounted.
I'm not 100% sure about what I am saying - I'm an ex baggy arsed digger not a naval architect - but I suspect that in the case of seriously amphibious vehicles, i.e. those that are intended to cover considerable distances over the sea from offshore, as opposed to those that are just intended to cross rivers/creeks etc, that their sea keeping qualities may be improved with size and the speed may be increased with greater hull length.Thought as much; no advantages whatsoever. Really makes one wonder what the hell was going through the minds of the M44 designers
So there maybe good, non-tactical/non-doctrinal reasons for the EFV and the LVTPs etc to be bigger than your average squad carrier.
Sir, I have been following the EFV programme for a while and, though it inititially showed promise I think the doctrinal and technical specifications clashed. IMO you can swim or you can crawl- you cannot do both well. The EFV is a technical compromise masquarading as technological cutting edge. IMO the USMC would have been better served getting an upgraded/modernised or new build (i.e., new design) LAAPVT type vehicle without all the technical gremlins that ensure that you'll have to have ideal conditions to use the damn thing in the first place or will invite trouble with all that could go wrong (i.e., the under nose planning chine thingy, the waterjets and retractable suspension/tracks, et al) and instead develop an AIST type hovercraft for the Ship to Shore over-the-horizon (OTH) assault phase; its size and speed mean that it could be fitted with proper CIWS to defeat SSM/AShM whilst being fast enough to weave and swerve over the water to avoid DPICM type cheapo anti-ship/area denial weapons fired from MRLs, MANPATS, etc., its capability vis-avis-sea states would also be vastly better meaning troops have a slightly better chance of actually getting ashore without fear of their track capsizing. Given that the EFV was designed at a time when OTH assaults were envisaged at a distance of 52miles nautical but US naval specialists are now concerned that, in fact, that distance is much more likely to be in excess of 100nm then the EFV seems like an inefficient solution to an ill-thought out doctrinal and operation requirement (same could be said of the V-22). But then again, thats part and parcel of the STOM concept. Personally, I think you'll always need a beachhead in order to secure your LOC. I personally wouldn't want to rely on a purely airborne or OTH based log/resupply chain. But that's purely based upon my reading of past amphibious ops.
Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 07-07-2010 at 03:10 PM. Reason: copy-editing
Can't tell the players without a program...
LINK.They’re based on the more modern LHD Wasp Class design, but initial ships will remove the LHD’s landing craft and well deck.
There's a a tmie and place for many things, even EFVs. METT-TC...
The core problem of the EFV - besides the long development - is that they mated the open sea cruise capability with the AFV itself.
It would have been much more versatile and simple to create a powered sled for AFV & container transport over open seas. They could then have used as normal AFV (normal short range/slow amphibiousness) such as a common Marines/Army M3 replacement.
I would be inclined to agree. But if you wanted that sled to be versatile and multipurpose, what would you call it? A landing craft? Full circle me thinks.
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
A flat, stackable and unsinkable (foamed cells) landing craft with remote piloting option.
The AFV does only need some amphibiousness for the final few metres to the beach, as safety precaution and for a marine specialisation on supporting the army at river crossings and in swampy regions.
I think the EFV is intended to fill a fairly specialised niche, and as such I don't think it is a good example as to the arguments for or against the amphibious qualities of APCs generally or the most desirable size for a general APC.
What if they have to crawl over a reef? Aren't the last few meters of the surf zone some of the most treacherous? How do you embark the force once a raid is complete? Do the APCs need to mate up with the sleds in the middle of the surf?
Personally, if we're going to dump the EFV, i'd rather see a new vehicle more like the existing AAV, only with modern bells and whistles. Then modify the JHSV to allow launch and recovery. It would act as a fast shuttle back and forth from the Sea Base. Unfortunately, this would place it within range of land defenses, but better it than a multi-billion dollar LHD/LPD.
What's the problem? The common AFV could still be amphibious in the MC version - short range ambphibious. Not high seas, not high speed, possibly no bilge pump.
Embarkation is simple, as is leaving such a sled. You simply drive over the edge. An empty sled can navigate even through the shallowest waters to the beach. The AFV would simply drive over the bow of the sledge if it doesn't make it with its load to the beach.
I'm sure that this is much more simple than a gold-plated-everything-in-one-beast option.
If the AFV is "AAV-level" amphibious, then it might work. AAVs are designed to go through rough surf zones. A garden variety amphibious M113s aren't. They're meant to cross a fairly calm rivers.
The sled is going to have some degree of draft even empty, so it can still get hung up on a very shallow reef or sand bar. The AFV will have to be amphibious enough to handle this situation as well.
How do you get the AFVs on the sled in the first place? Will this happen on the amphibious ship? Or will you launch the sleds first, then the AFVs, then mate them up at sea? Where will you store the sleds when they're not in use? Sounds like you'll need a bigger amphib to carry sleds and AFVs.
How will you recover the AFVs and sleds back to the amphib after an operation? The AFVs will have to mate up with the sleds at sea again somewhere. Past the surf zone and any reefs, presumably. Then onboard the amphib they would have to be separated somehow for stowage.
Mating in ship: Stacked sled lowered onto water in welldeck, fixed with two ropes, AFV drives onto it, clamps engage.
Mating on land: Sled is pulled close to beach or onto beach with winch, AFV drives onto it, clamps engage, combo is being pushed into deep enough water by an APC or pulled by something that already swims.
And seriously, there are almost no places on earth with problematic reefs. There's not going t be another island-hopping campaign.
Maybe its just me but what you ptropose sounds awfully like an LCM to me (albeit with provision for an autopilot/remote control UAV style)?
It is, but with "unsinkable" foam-filled module for floatation instead of the huge freeboard. That allows stacking in the ship.
Freeboard is sort of useful. It offers protection from the sea/wind as well as potentially some protection from at least small arms fire.
To me (and Im not a sailor) freeboard means you can carry stuff other than AFVs. E.g. you could carry a landrover or unimog and expect it to start, because it's engine compartment would be more protected from being swamped by waves. I.e. you don't need a container.
Furthermore I can't really see these open sleds as being all that useful for carrying troops, casualties, being used as command posts, aid stations, ship to shore cargo and the like. With an LCM or LCU you can just load the troops, medics, commanders and radios on and you have a troop carrier/aid post/CP.
Same with 'B' (non AFV) vehicles, and general cargo e.g. pallets, bulk stores.
As BSmitty suggests, these sleds don't sound like they'd do well with difficult coasts either. Granted there may not be another island hopping campaign with the need to navigate coral reefs, but sandbars, rocks and shoals are still plentiful. So are rivers. And while I reckon it is pretty easy to use an AAV/EFV in a river I think it might be a lot more difficult to use a powered sled, especially if the river has locks/barrages and the like.
Whilst I can certainly see where Tukhachevskii is coming from with his argument for Aist or bigger sized hovercraft I don't think he was denying the need for AAV type vehicles, merely the wisdom in an EFV type vehicle that is supposed to be all singing and dancing, i.e. incredibly complex by the need to aquaplane at high speed.
It seems to me your sled idea adding additional cost and complexity but instead of adding it to the EFV you are moving the extra cost and complexity into these powered remote controlled sleds and in the process losing flexibility. In fact I'd suggest you are adding extra cost and complexity. Instead of a single powerplant in your APC you have the APC powerplant and another powerplant for the sled, as well as he sled's control/nav system.
What is your objection to fairly specialised sea capable vehicles like the EFV/AAV? Especially for marine/naval infantry units.
What does the sled concept offer over the traditional EFV/AAV and landing craft combination (including LCACs or other hovercraft, large or small or even Ekranoplans)? How is your idea more versatile?
Re: #1 your summation of my position is correct.
#2 Now you're talking. I've always loved those gigantic Soviet era WiG/Ekranoplan's like the Caspian Sea monster. Their potential for amphibious operations (as well as strategic and operational mobiltiy in general) remains a, er, um, potentialthat is unfortunately underexplored. However, I think the US (as per usual
Wing in Ground Effact Craft Review
Airlift 2025
Strategic Mobility Innovation
Wing in Ground Effect Aircraft
Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 07-11-2010 at 11:10 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks