Is the LAV 3 amphibious?

[a_majoor]

While the MPC project seems to be a LAV type vehicle on steroids (carrying up to 19 people? The thing is a bus), it still only has the limited capabilities we think about when talking about "amphibious vehicles".

This thread was a great excuse to do some surfing, and one thing which became very clear is capable amphibious vehicles require a great deal of engineering and design work before it ever hits the road/rivers, and there is usually a lot of compromise to be made to serve each function. Compare a WWII era GMC 2 1/2 ton truck with a DUKW.

Because the DUKW was built from the existing GMC 2 1/2 ton, it was available in large numbers and relatively cheap, but even so had many critical faults:

http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_dukw.php

Despite its overall success, the DUKW was criticized from the beginning as too small for reasonable cargo volume, difficult to unload, too slow in the water, too prone to bogging in muddy conditions, and helpless in exiting from the water except over rersonably good sand beaches, These deficiencies led to post-War developments, including the XM147 Super DUKW and the LARC-V (Lighter, Amphibious, Resupply, Cargo, 5 ton capacity).

The British, with their love of baroque engineering, built what is perhaps the finest amphibious truck during the cold war, the FV 620 Stalwart 6x6, with large wheels for low ground pressure and the ability to climb in and out of the water, and a water jet so it could swim well. Of course, with the fuel tank, engine, transmission and waterjet mounted between the frame rails under the cargo bed, mechanics were a bit less than thrilled to work on the beast.

I think most of us who had experience with the AVGP or M-113 fleets and swimming are pretty much in agreement with most of what is posted upthread; swimming was fun, but not something you could do on a regular basis (stripped drain plugs [or worse, stripped threads on the holes the drain plugs were supposed to plug] was the biggest problem with the AVGP family).

The LVTP-7 (or AAV in its latest incarnation) is more of a ship which can come ashore, while the BV-206 and its cousins represent another (amazingly complex) way of getting around. Given the conditions in Canada and the various tasks we do, the BV-206 type of vehicle is probably far more useful than an amphibious LAV, but for different reasons.

 

[Kirkhill]

... Given the conditions in Canada and the various tasks we do, the BV-206 type of vehicle is probably far more useful than an amphibious LAV...

Agreed.

 

[GR66]

Instead of developing an amphibious vehicle has anyone ever tried developing something like a form of "water taxi" to carry a non-amphibious vehicle?  I don't mean a landing craft.  I'm more envisioning something like a pontoon boat with a drive station in the rear and a pair of pontoons on the sides.  A vehicle could park between the pontoons which are then mounted to the sides of the vehicle mechanically.  The drive section attaches to the back of the pontoons, the vehicle drives into the water and the propulsion section takes over.  Once you reach the far shore you disconnect the pontoons and the "boat" drives back to pick up another vehicle.

It would still require the vehicle being carried to be watertight, but that and the mounting points would be the main modifications required.  I'm so far out of my lane here that I'm off-road....but just curious as to what's been tried.

 

[McG]

Instead of developing an amphibious vehicle has anyone ever tried developing something like a form of "water taxi" to carry a non-amphibious vehicle? 

Are you suggesting something like these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Amphibious_Rig
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFA_(mobile_bridge)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTS_(amphibious_vehicle)

 

[George Wallace]

Are you suggesting something like these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Amphibious_Rig
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFA_(mobile_bridge)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTS_(amphibious_vehicle)

Those links are a bit temperamental and may need further googlefu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M3G_ferry_2.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:French_army_EFA_DSC00859.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FileTS-2.JPG

 

[a_majoor]

Instead of developing an amphibious vehicle has anyone ever tried developing something like a form of "water taxi" to carry a non-amphibious vehicle?  I don't mean a landing craft.  I'm more envisioning something like a pontoon boat with a drive station in the rear and a pair of pontoons on the sides.  A vehicle could park between the pontoons which are then mounted to the sides of the vehicle mechanically.  The drive section attaches to the back of the pontoons, the vehicle drives into the water and the propulsion section takes over.  Once you reach the far shore you disconnect the pontoons and the "boat" drives back to pick up another vehicle.

It would still require the vehicle being carried to be watertight, but that and the mounting points would be the main modifications required.  I'm so far out of my lane here that I'm off-road....but just curious as to what's been tried.

Really, after looking at the idea a few times, you have separated the parts of the WWII era "DD" tank (the floatation screens and the marine drive) from the vehicle and this just gets bolted on prior to swimming. From an engineering perspective, wouldn't it be better to have this factory installed rather than trusting the vehicle crew to do it properly before swimming (especially in the dark, while tired or under fire)?

While I like the way you think, this seems rather more elaborate and difficult than just driving aboard a regular pontoon boat and sailing across the lake. It also induces multiple extra points of failure, which can't be a good thing.

 

[GR66]

Are you suggesting something like these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Amphibious_Rig
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFA_(mobile_bridge)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTS_(amphibious_vehicle)

Actually no.  Again, this is a totally uneducated waaaaaayyyy out of my lane thought, but I'm not thinking of any type of bridging equipment, barge, or amphibious vehicle.  I'm envisioning more of a low-tech, field mounted "kit" you'd basically add to an existing vehicle to make it temporarily "amphibious".

Take your sealed LAV III with welded mounting points.  Attach a pontoon to each side of the vehicle using the mounting points to create the buoyancy required to make the vehicle float.  Mount a propulsion/steering module to the back of the pontoons (outboard motors or a jet propulsion system?) to drive the vehicle through the water.  Dismount at the opposite shore.

Here's a VERY crude idea of what I'm thinking (no second career as a graphic artist here!).

With something like this you could use one (or a few) of these contraptions to ferry a number of (properly modified) vehicles across a body of relatively calm water.  I imagine it would be cheaper and easier to transport than barges or bridging equipment.  You don't have a lot of design trade-offs to make for your armoured vehicles because they basically only need to be water tight (shouldn't they be for CRBN environments anyway?) and have mounting points added.  Throw a (steel reinforced) wooden platform between the pontoons and you've even got a portable barge to transport people/supplies across a body of water.

 

[George Wallace]

Actually no.  Again, this is a totally uneducated waaaaaayyyy out of my lane thought, but I'm not thinking of any type of bridging equipment, barge, or amphibious vehicle.  I'm envisioning more of a low-tech, field mounted "kit" you'd basically add to an existing vehicle to make it temporarily "amphibious".

Take your sealed LAV III with welded mounting points.  Attach a pontoon to each side of the vehicle using the mounting points to create the buoyancy required to make the vehicle float.  Mount a propulsion/steering module to the back of the pontoons (outboard motors or a jet propulsion system?) to drive the vehicle through the water.  Dismount at the opposite shore.

Here's a VERY crude idea of what I'm thinking (no second career as a graphic artist here!).

With something like this you could use one (or a few) of these contraptions to ferry a number of (properly modified) vehicles across a body of relatively calm water.  I imagine it would be cheaper and easier to transport than barges or bridging equipment.  You don't have a lot of design trade-offs to make for your armoured vehicles because they basically only need to be water tight (shouldn't they be for CRBN environments anyway?) and have mounting points added.  Throw a (steel reinforced) wooden platform between the pontoons and you've even got a portable barge to transport people/supplies across a body of water.

Unfortunately, in combat time is a luxury you may not have.  This is very time consuming. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Most successful river assaults in AFV history required a fair bit of planning and prep. The last one under fire as I recall was in the Indo-Pak war using PT-76's

The Advance Continues

It wasn't until December 12th that 'A' Squadron reached the Hardinge bridge over the Ganges River. The Pakistanis had abandoned their elaborate defense works, many vehicles, and even an M24 on the bridge itself. When the 9th (Indian) Division prepared to assault Daulatpur, they forced a crossing of the Bhairab River on December 13/14th. One objective was to take the ferry at Syamganj. The 45 Cavalry's tanks floated down the river and engaged targets while other tanks supported the infantry on the river banks. The town was captured by that afternoon. The 107th Pak Brigade surrendered with 3,700 men on December 15th.

By December 13th, an ad hoc force from the 9th Pakistani Division was defending a line along the 400 metre wide Madhumati River. On the night of December 14/15th, two troops of 'A' Squadron, 45th Cavalry crossed to the north of the Pakistanis (securing the Kumarkhali ferry site by first light). The two troops crossing to the south had trouble with the river approaches, so that only two tanks were across by 10:30 a.m. the next morning. However, the tanks - along with the infantry carried on their decks - set up roadblocks north and south of the Pakistani positions. This eventually forced the surrender of 50 officers and 343 soldiers.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/History/1971War/278-Armour-Advantage.html

 

[cupper]

Most successful river assaults in AFV history required a fair bit of planning and prep. The last one under fire as I recall was in the Indo-Pak war using PT-76's

You also have the Egyptian Crossing of the Suez in '73. Although from what I recall, the armoured crossing (mix of PT-76 and APC's) was along a section where they were unopposed by Israeli forces. 

 

[Kirkhill]

You also have the Egyptian Crossing of the Suez in '73. Although from what I recall, the armoured crossing (mix of PT-76 and APC's) was along a section where they were unopposed by Israeli forces.

Isn't it a good thing to hit where the enemy isn't?

 

[a_majoor]

Can you provide a reference? Most of what I read about the Egyptian crossing involved Egyptian commandos and engineers crossing in boats to make the breaches in the sand wall and prevent counter attacks, while bridge and ferry units brought the bulk of the heavy equipment across.

 

[cupper]

Isn't it a good thing to hit where the enemy isn't?

Agreed, but Colin P made the reference that the last amphibious assault UNDER FIRE was the Indo / Pakistani reference he used, hence my comment regarding the Egyptian assault being unopposed.

Can you provide a reference? Most of what I read about the Egyptian crossing involved Egyptian commandos and engineers crossing in boats to make the breaches in the sand wall and prevent counter attacks, while bridge and ferry units brought the bulk of the heavy equipment across.

My recollection comes from a discussion several years ago with someone who was doing research for a degree in military history through the USMC. I was under the same impression as you, that I has always heard the assault was mainly infantry and engineer commandos in boats attacking across the canal sections and cutting through the sand berms. I was surprised that they had also used amphibious tanks and APC's to do crossings as well. Apparently it occurred at the large lake sections along the canal.

Unfortunately, the only references on line I can find at the moment that have any amount of detail are Wikipedia references. I'll see if I can track down anything later and update it if I do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Badr_(1973)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My knowledge is imperfect, I always thought the canal was done by assault boat, followed by assault bridging. Apparently they used water cannons to was through the sand berms.

 

[Fabius]

I did some digging and located a bit more information about the Egyptian amphibious crossings in 1973.
The 130th Amphibious Mech Brigade did indeed swim the Great Bitter Lakes on Oct 6, 1973. It took 30 minutes for the Bde to cross to the Isreali side.
The Bde suffered no casaulties during the crossing. The Bde's objectives once on the far bank were to seize the Milta and Giddi mountain passes in order to
prevent Isreali reinforcements from reaching the Bar Lev Line. The objectives were not met as the PT 76 Light tanks were unable to
hold off the heavier Israeli MBTs.

The 130th Amph Mech Bde ORBAT at the time of the crossing was as follows:
2 x Mech Bn each with 10 PT 76s and 40 Amph APCs
1 x Anti Tank Bn with Sagger AT missles
1 x Anti Air Bn
1 x 120mm Mortar Bn

Obviously with a total Bde strength of 1000 men the 3 Combat Support Bn's were likley more of a Pl/Coy level structure vice what we would deem a Bn. Sources I found were not clear whether or not the actual landing was opposed or not but the sources seem to indicate that it was unopposed.

Reference was "The Albetrous of Decisive Victory: War and Policy between Eygpt and Isreal", George Walter Gawrych, pg 176 (http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA323718 or http://books.google.ca/books?id=Da8qEtrF2sMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false)

The Amph operation by 130th Amph Mech Bde was also mentioned in several additional publications but not with the same amount of detail.

Edited for Spelling

 

[Gen. Cormer]

Cormer Defense out of Winnipeg re-signed and installed amphibious capabilities for the Marines Stryker, should be an easy fit for a LAV.

 

[AC 011]

Cormer Defense out of Winnipeg re-signed and installed amphibious capabilities for the Marines Stryker, should be an easy fit for a LAV.

The Marines don't have Strykers. And Strykers don't swim.