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.Originally Posted by Fuchs
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.
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)?
For the life of me I couldn't remember what this statement reminded me of until...now. Essentially what you have are Mexeflote rafts/ military "uber" surfboards. I suppose that you could collect them all after the initial assault elements have taken the beach and then build a mulburry harbour out of them for follow on exploitation forces!
I'd rather think of stacked surf boards or rigid engineer boats for river crossings.
Seriously excellent piece of equipment. Much underrated, except by anyone who has used it.For the life of me I couldn't remember what this statement reminded me of until...now. Essentially what you have are Mexeflote rafts/ military "uber" surfboards
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Thoughts from 1999...
The Regimental Rogue makes some interesting statements regarding the 21st Century Infantry Company which cover the doctrinal and practical aspects of LAV command, seating arrangements for dismounts as well as the composition of said beasties. His ideas seem to be a via media between the separate carrier Bn advocates and the US style embedded/infantry crewed APC concept.
(#1) Our officiers can speak volumes on the theory of tactical employment of IFVs at the combat team and higher, but we've never seriously figured out how we're going to tactically integrate these vehicles within the infantry compan y.
#2 The crewed vehicle concept ... requires the establishment, training and maintaining of dedicated crews for each vehicle. [...]
#3 One of the most awkward moments in the operations of an M113 or GRIZZLY company was the dismount. The delay and loss of continuity (of fire, observation and control) as the commander switched with the gunner was always simply "accepted" as part of the cost of doing business. [T]he [LAV] turret basket requires that the gun be traversed centre before the crew commander can dismount through the hull. this means every vehicle dismounting its creww commander will surrender the tactical advantage of a 25mm stabilised chain gun firing on the objective.
#4 At all levels, the infantry commander is the leader of the dismounted force and its supporting LAV component. The LAV APC is a firepower, mobility and protection asset supporting the ground battle waged by the dismounted infantry - but it must be crewed and directed with as much consideration as any other component of the battalion's combat power.
So why dismount the man manning the gun? That's just moronic and bad training. Doing stupid stuff is always stupid.#3 One of the most awkward moments in the operations of an M113 or GRIZZLY company was the dismount. The delay and loss of continuity (of fire, observation and control) as the commander switched with the gunner was always simply "accepted" as part of the cost of doing business. [T]he [LAV] turret basket requires that the gun be traversed centre before the crew commander can dismount through the hull. this means every vehicle dismounting its creww commander will surrender the tactical advantage of a 25mm stabilised chain gun firing on the objective.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
It was an old drill when we had the M113/Grizzleys - the article was written before we brought the LAV in and codified our IFV doctrine. We've since moved away from that silliness with dedicated crew commanders. The big debate in the Infantry for us is where the Platoon Commander rides - in the turret for max command and control, in the back to dismount as soon as the troops do or switching up during the fight through (which leads to the debate of popping out of a turret in the middle of an assault and break-in).
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks