Infantry Vehicles

[FJAG]

I would guess a CMBG would not do an assault river xing unsupported. I think that is a Div or Corps op. Small gap crossings (anti tank ditch etc) I would guess is still a go. Watching AEVs and AVLBs operate is really neat btw.

Now IIRC you have to secure the near bank, then the far bank then build a bridge across the river (Not from witches) then hold onto ALL that.

I don't think that we have had any AVLBs since the six Leo1 Beavers were divested.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I would guess a CMBG would not do an assault river xing unsupported. I think that is a Div or Corps op. Small gap crossings (anti tank ditch etc) I would guess is still a go. Watching AEVs and AVLBs operate is really neat btw.

Now IIRC you have to secure the near bank, then the far bank then build a bridge across the river (Not from witches) then hold onto ALL that.

We would struggle to cross a contested 40m wide river that's to deep to wade I suspect and if we had been tossed into the Ukrainian conflict we might have had to bring our own bridging.

 

[Furniture]

Pretty sure they were talking about how limited most amphibious vehicles are in terms of waves / current / and other weather conditions for a crossing.

100% what I was getting at.

I'm not an expert in army cars, but I know one or two things about weather.

 

[markppcli]

Yup. Heavy construction does this on a regular through out the back 40. Involves big trucks, a dozer or two and excavator. (sometimes a crane) Depending on the gap size and bridge footing one might get away with just using a truck or two. Big trucks with winches and big tires and gin poles.

Sorry based on what you responded to, the comment on armoured bridge layers, I assumed you meant armoured bridging. We have trucks to lay bridge sections and create pontoons.

Which European Countries, Kind of Curious?

the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Italians, the Spanish (currently getting rid of legacy m113s so maybe asterix that), the British…. I gues the Italians maintain some amphibious AFVs in specific units, uhhh let’s see who else.. Norway, Belgium, Sweden… Denmark?

Really if you look at IFVs / APCs built in the last 30 years you’ll find that amphibious capability is not seen as important. Partly because a) it’s a huge pain in the sick to prepare for and b) the ford depths of 1.5 ish meters on most of these is seen as sufficient for small obstacles.

 

[markppcli]

100% what I was getting at.

I'm not an expert in army cars, but I know one or two things about weather.

And know enough about air power to know we can do CAS in the rain lol.

 

[Kirkhill]

the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Italians, the Spanish (currently getting rid of legacy m113s so maybe asterix that), the British…. I gues the Italians maintain some amphibious AFVs in specific units, uhhh let’s see who else.. Norway, Belgium, Sweden… Denmark?

Really if you look at IFVs / APCs built in the last 30 years you’ll find that amphibious capability is not seen as important. Partly because a) it’s a huge pain in the sick to prepare for and b) the ford depths of 1.5 ish meters on most of these is seen as sufficient for small obstacles.

Current operators Bv206 [edit]​

• Argentine National Gendarmerie
• Austrian Armed Forces
• Brazilian Marine Corps
• British Armed Forces
• Canadian Army – (78)
• Chilean Marine Corps
• Estonian Defence Forces
• Finnish Army
• French Army
• German Army
• Hellenic Army – Used with ARTHUR counterbattery radar.
• Indonesian Army — Used by 2nd Group of the Kopassus special forces.
• Irish Defence Forces[7] – (7) Fitted with GIRAFFE Mk IV radars.
• Israel Defense Forces
• Italian Army (about 110 BV-206; 112 BV-206S7 and 46 BV-206S)
• Latvian Land Forces
• Lithuanian Land Force
• Malaysian Army - (80)
• Netherlands Navy
• Norwegian Army – (1000)
• Singapore Army
• South Korean Army
• Spanish Army
• Swedish Army – (4,500) Includes BvS 10 variant
• Royal Thai Army
• Ukrainian Ground Forces
• United States Armed Forces – Used in the United States Army by the 86th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne) and 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division. Also used by the United States Marine Corps.
• United States National Guard

Bv206S Tracked Armoured Personnel Carrier

The Bv206S tracked armoured personnel carrier Recommended White Papers Whitepaper Composite Rubber Track (CRT) and Differing Climatic Conditions Whitepaper Composite…

www.army-technology.com

The Bv206S vehicle was developed jointly by Alvis Hagglunds (now BAE Systems Land Systems Hagglunds) and the Swedish Army Materiel Command, initially for use by the Swedish armed forces. It is in service with the armed forces of France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Sweden. The Bv206S is also under evaluation by other armies. Orders have been received for 479 Bv206S vehicles.

Bv206S orders and contracts​

In March 2004, the Swedish Army placed an order for 15 more Bv206S vehicles (seven troop carriers, five cargo carriers and three ambulances). In June 2006, a follow-on order for 52 vehicles was placed. This brings total orders for Sweden to 93 vehicles.

In October 2003, Land Systems Hagglunds received an order for 112 Bv206S all-terrain vehicles from the Italian Army. The vehicles are being delivered between 2004 and 2007. A further 34 were ordered in November 2003. The programme is currently planned to total 189 vehicles.


In 2002, Rheinmetall Landsysteme GmbH (as the contract authority) placed a production contract on Land Systems Hagglunds for 31 Bv206S vehicles with delivery into service by 2005. A further 75 were ordered in December 2004 and 81 in September 2005. The total Bv206S requirement for Germany is 200 vehicles.

The Bv206S has been deployed in Kosovo by the French Army. A number of the French vehicles ordered in September 1999 are fitted with a turret and an M2 12.7mm machine gun.

BvS10 Viking Operators[edit]​

• Austria: 32 in use with the Austrian Army. Ordered in July 2016, first vehicles delivered in February 2019.[23][24]
• France: 53 BvS10 in use with the French Army.[25]
• Netherlands: 73 BvS10 in use with the Netherlands Marine Corps.[26]
• Sweden: 153 BvS10 MkII in use with the Swedish Army.[27] New order in 2021 for 127 BvS10 vehicles with a 2022 follow-on order for 40[18] and 236 under the CATV program.
• United Kingdom: 99 BvS-10 Mk2 in use with the Royal Marines.[28] 60 ordered under the CATV program to be delivered from 2024 onwards.
• Ukraine: 28 ex-Dutch BvS-10s donated to Ukraine prior to March 2023.[29]

Piranha III[edit]​

• Belgian Army – Piranha IIIC 8×8 selected in 2006, ordered in 2 batches, 242 delivered from 2008 to 2015
  • 99 FUSELIER (APC)[19]
  • 32 DF30 (30mm Elbit turret)[20]
  • 40 DF90[21]
  • 24 command vehicle[22]
  • 12 Ambulance[23]
  • 17 ARV[24]
  • 18 Engineering[25]
• Botswana Defence Force – 90 Piranha III
  • 45 Piranha IIIC ordered in 2002, delivered from 2003 to 2004 (APC variant).[7]
  • 45 Piranha ordered in 2016, delivered from 2019 to 2022 (IFV variant, equipped with HITFIST turret).[26]
• Brazilian Marine Corps – 30 Piranha IIIC [26][27]
  • 25 APC
  • 2 ARV
  • 2 command post
  • 1 ambulance
• Danish Army – 113 Piranha III [26]
  • 22 Piranha IIIH (MTU 6V183TE22 (400hp) diesel engine)[28]
    • 18 APC
    • 2 ARV
    • 2 command post
  • 91 Piranha IIIC
    • 60 command post, reconnaissance + APC
    • 11 Ambulance[7]
• Moldovan Ground Forces – 19 Piranha IIIH, supplied by Germany as overhauled former Danish Army vehicles, first 3 vehicles delivered on 11.01.2023[7]
• Irish Army – 80 Piranha IIIH [26]
  • 63 APC (CRV)
  • 8 command post
  • 6 IFV (MRV)
  • 2 ambulance
  • 1 ARV
• Romanian Land Forces – 43 Piranha IIIC.[29]
• Spanish Navy Marines – 39 Piranha IIIC in 3 versions.[7]
• Swedish Army – 13 Piranha IIIC 10x10 [26]
  • 7 Armoured Command Vehicle (ACV)
  • 6 Armoured Sensor Vehicle (ASV) with Giraffe radar
• Swiss Army – 60 Piranha IIIC, including 12 NBC detection vehicles (vhc expl ABC / ABC Aufkl Fz).[30] The 12 NBC variant are equipped with a Protector RWS [31], and equipped with a Caterpillar C-9 diesel engine (400 hp).

Patria AMV Current operators[edit]​

Croatia126 units currently entering service, 84 ordered in 2007 and additional 42 in December 2008, first 4 vehicles delivered in December 2008. Due to a military budget cut, the order was slightly amended in April 2010, but the total number of 126 units was not changed. All vehicles are to be delivered by late 2012. Croatia is likely to order number of new Patria due to requirements for Medium Brigade, up to 42 additional Patria AMV armed with Elbit UT30MK2 turrets could be ordered before 2025, eventually 160 Patria AMV could be in service with the army.[37][38] In March 2023, Croatia ordered an additional 30 Patria AMV outfitted with for use with Spike LR missiles.[39]


Finland62 standard APCs equipped with Kongsberg turrets and 18 armoured wheeled mortar carriers equipped with the AMOS mortar system.

Poland1197 APCs and amphibious AFVs. Manufactured under license at Rosomak S.A, marked as KTO Rosomak (Kołowy Transporter Opancerzony Rosomak, transl. wheeled armored personnel carrier "Wolverine").[40] All of the ordered vehicles were delivered by 2019. In 2013 the original order for 359 IFVs and 331 base vehicles was increased by 307 units—including 122 IFVs with new turret.[41] In 2013 there were a total of 570 vehicles in service[42] In January 2015, the Polish army placed an order for 200 additional vehicles.[43] This brought the total number of vehicles in operation up to 977.

SlovakiaIn March 2022 the Slovakian Ministry of Defence selected Finland and Patria AMVxp 8x8 as BOV 8x8 programme tender winner. 76 vehicles, new version of Patria AMVXP ordered and being delivered.[44]

Slovenia30 vehicles that had already been delivered, due to economic and legal questions.[45]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_AMV#cite_note-45
South Africa238 units. Designated Badger.[46] There will be five versions: a standard infantry carrier, a command car, fire support variant, mortar carrier and tank hunter.[47]

SwedenSweden made an order for 113 vehicles, and had an option for the same number of vehicles,[48] but a Swedish court ordered the competition to be re-done.[49] On 13 August 2010 the new competition ended in the same result as the original competition with Sweden ordering 113 vehicles from Patria.[50] The first vehicles were delivered on 5 March 2013.[51]


United Arab EmiratesThe United Arab Emirates Army ordered[52] an initial evaluation batch of 15 vehicles.[53] These vehicles will be equipped with BMP-3 turrets and have therefore been slightly modified, including a somewhat longer hull.[54] In January 2016, the General Headquarters of the UAE armed forces ordered 40 Patria AMV hulls with the option of 50 more.[55][56] The vehicles were shipped in June 2016 from Patria's Polish production line.[57] The Patrias are used in Yemen in combat operations.[36]

Future operators[edit]​

• Japan - It was reported in December 2020 that two Patria AMVXP 8×8 vehicles are being sent to Japan from Finland for field tests to participate in the Next Wheeled Armored Vehicle project under the Japanese Ministry of Defense.[58] From December 15, 2021, the MOD has started field tests to asertain the vehicle and an unnamed armored vehicle made by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.[59] On December 9, 2022, the Japanese Ministry of Defense awarded a contract for the AMV through Patria Japan.[60]
• Ukraine - It was reported on 1 April 2023 that Ukraine had ordered 100 vehicles from the Polish production line. The vehicles will be paid by funds allocated by the EU and USA.[61] Later, in an interview, president Zelensky said that there would be 200 vehicles, 100 now, 100 later. The deal would also include mortar carriers. [62]

And, as I have already noted, the Poles and the Koreans have both built amphibiousity into their IFVs... in the last thirty years.

Seems like an awful lot of nobodies can swim a section across a crick without calling up the Corps pontoons.

I would suggest that this is the difference between a Medium Force and a Heavy Force

And that that difference is the difference between a Medium Force vehicle and a Light Tank.

But then that would make the Korean K21 and the Polish Borsuk Medium Force vehicles.

 

[childs56]

Sorry based on what you responded to, the comment on armoured bridge layers, I assumed you meant armoured bridging. We have trucks to lay bridge sections and create pontoons.

Armored Bridge layer or not, lots of capabilities in doing so. The Armored gear is only good for small gaps, for most crossings this size if needed one could plow dirt over the crossing and make it work until better assets showed up.

the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Italians, the Spanish (currently getting rid of legacy m113s so maybe asterix that), the British…. I gues the Italians maintain some amphibious AFVs in specific units, uhhh let’s see who else.. Norway, Belgium, Sweden… Denmark?

CV90, Maruader,(Puma),Wiesel, Tpz, Mowag Piranna,Patria AMV Borsuk, SUPERAV The US and Britain have not invested in amphibious armor, instead focusing on heavier survivable gear.

Really if you look at IFVs / APCs built in the last 30 years you’ll find that amphibious capability is not seen as important. Partly because a) it’s a huge pain in the sick to prepare for and b) the ford depths of 1.5 ish meters on most of these is seen as sufficient for small obstacles.

Amphibious operations is not a main point of build, but it is still considered.
Many European countries still maintain amphibious capable armored vehicles. Germans have a Few, The Swedish have some, Poland has a few, and a few other Countries. Are they going to cross the Baltic sea, no, but they will cross that river that might swamp other vehicles. It would be pretty crappy if the advance had to stop at the river due to not being able to cross it. Ask the Russians how that went with their floating bridge.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . a step up from a DUKW in reducing the impact of water obstacles. Likewise the M113. The M113 could cross shallow creeks and narrow rivers without having to replicate the lessons of "A Bridge Too Far".

You may be more impressed with the ability of the M113 to tackle water obstacles than those who drove/rode in the aluminum boxes. That's not to say it wasn't a good vehicle for its time and place, but it did have limitations.

As for preparation/operation for water obstacles, the "warnings" in the section of TM 9-2350-277-10 (OPERATOR’S MANUAL CARRIER, PERSONNEL, FULL TRACKED, ARMORED M113A3) dealing with water operations should give you some idea about the precautions that we used to take for relatively simple water/river crossings.

These are just some of the "warnings" for water operations found on pdf pages 397 to 432 of the linked TM. Granted it it a more recent manual and thus issued during a more safety conscious environment. I don't remember such a comprehensive operator's manual when I learned to operate the APC in the 1970s, but the warnings about water crossing and the precautions (prep of veh, pers, safety staff and entry and exit banks) needed before attempting were just as numerous.

---

FORD WATER UP TO 40 INCHES DEEP
WARNING When water depth is unknown or deeper than 40 inches (3.4 feet), do not attempt to ford stream. Carrier may sink and personnel could drown. See task: PREPARATION BEFOREWATER OPERATION (WP 0066 00).

PREPARATION BEFORE WATER OPERATION WARNING Do not perform water operations without flotation bag properly secured and opened. Before starting water operations, perform all carrier PMCS and the Preparation Before Water Operation. Pay particular attention to drain plugs and access covers which must be in place, straight and tight. Failure to do this could result in carrier sinking and loss of life.

Carrier could sink and personnel could drown without track shrouds secured in place. Carrier can have loss of steering without track shrouds. Do not attempt water operation without them

If bilge pumps do not work during water operations, carrier can sink; personnel can be killed. Do not attempt water operations if bilge pumps do not operate.

When power plant door detent screw is missing or does not rub against handle when handle is moved to closed position, power plant door can open and take in water during water operation. Carrier can sink and personnel can drown. Do not attempt water operations when detent screw is missing or improperly adjusted.

Unsecured stowage/load can shift or fall during carrier motion. Personnel can be injured. Secure all stowage/load to eliminate movement regardless of carrier attitude, including inverted position. Carrier can sink and personnel can drown when maximum load (weight of personnel, fuel and/or cargo) is exceeded and/or not properly distributed. Distribute weight of cargo and/or personnel evenly before entering water, per load plan in WP 0106 00

Displaced or damaged ramp and personnel door seals may let water leak into cargo area. Personnel can drown. Check door ramp and seals before closing doors. Do not attempt water operation if there is leakage.

If hatches are closed during water operations, carrier can sink and personnel can be trapped inside and drown. All hatches must be in open position with locking pins installed before water operations.

Carrier can sink during water operations when trim vane is not extended and locked in place and flotation bag is not open. Personnel can be killed. Before entering water, extend and lock trim vane in position for water operations. Open and properly secure flotation bag. NOTE Carriers can float, however, swimming is not allowed. Since the bottom, beneath the surface of the water may have holes, gullies, soft spots and other hazards, carriers must be prepared to float and move away from dangerous areas.

If carrier sinks, personnel can drown when safety belts are fastened. Release safety belts before starting water operations.

Exceeding terrain and water obstacle limits greatly increases chance of sinking. Entering the carrier in water containing a large amount of debris or ice, water moving faster than 2 mph or with waves above 6 inches is high risk. Do not enter the carrier in water containing large amounts of debris, water current greater than 2 mph, or with waves over 6 inches high. Do not exceed limits. The carrier could sink and personnel can drown.

Do not jump the carrier into the water. This could cause the carrier to sink and result in injury or death to personnel. Do not stay in the water if carrier bilge pumps are pumping a steady stream for more than 30 seconds.

Personnel in the carrier should remain still and not move during water operations. Movement may upset the balance of the carrier, causing death or injury

Carrier can sink and personnel can drown if dip (trial water operation) exercise is not conducted before actual water operation in streams or rivers with personnel aboard.

Carrier can sink during water operations when trim vane is not extended and locked in place, and engine grille water barrier is not erected. Personnel can be killed. Before entering water, extend and lock trim vane in proper position for water operations with flotation bag secure. Erect engine grille water barrier.

Carrier can sink and personnel can drown when maximum load (weight of personnel and/or cargo) is exceeded and/or not properly distributed. Do not operate carrier in water if water is above water level strip on trim vane.

Carrier can sink and personnel could be injured or killed if carrier enters or exits on a slope greater than 30% grade. Do not exceed a 30% entry/exit slope.

Enter water head on. Do not attempt to back-up into water. Personnel could be injured or killed.

Personnel should not move during water operations. Personnel movement may upset the balance of the carrier causing death or injury.

Sudden responses to acceleration and deceleration due to throttle, brakes, or opposite travel direction, may cause water to break over front of carrier and enter intake grill or open hatches. Personnel can be killed. Always accelerate and decelerate carrier smoothly and gradually

Do not attempt to exit the water at an angle. The carrier may overturn and sink. Personnel could be killed. Always exit straight up the slope.

---

It could still be fun and perhaps militarily necessary, but it was dangerous in peacetime so I assume that it would be a magnitude beyond perception more dangerous in war.





However if I had the choice in crossing (regardless of vehicle type) I'd go this way.

 

[Kirkhill]

Armored Bridge layer or not, lots of capabilities in doing so. The Armored gear is only good for small gaps, for most crossings this size if needed one could plow dirt over the crossing and make it work until better assets showed up.

CV90, Maruader,(Puma),Wiesel, Tpz, Mowag Piranna,Patria AMV Borsuk, SUPERAV The US and Britain have not invested in amphibious armor, instead focusing on heavier survivable gear.

Amphibious operations is not a main point of build, but it is still considered.
Many European countries still maintain amphibious capable armored vehicles. Germans have a Few, The Swedish have some, Poland has a few, and a few other Countries. Are they going to cross the Baltic sea, no, but they will cross that river that might swamp other vehicles. It would be pretty crappy if the advance had to stop at the river due to not being able to cross it. Ask the Russians how that went with their floating bridge.

Just one note - I don't think the CV90 is amphibious. It will have to wait with the Leos for the pontoons to show up.

 

[Kirkhill]

You may be more impressed with the ability of the M113 to tackle water obstacles than those who drove/rode in the aluminum boxes. That's not to say it wasn't a good vehicle for its time and place, but it did have limitations.

As for preparation/operation for water obstacles, the "warnings" in the section of TM 9-2350-277-10 (OPERATOR’S MANUAL CARRIER, PERSONNEL, FULL TRACKED, ARMORED M113A3) dealing with water operations should give you some idea about the precautions that we used to take for relatively simple water/river crossings.

Theses are just some of the "warnings" for water operations found on pdf pages 397 to 432 of the linked TM. Granted it it a more recent manual and thus issued during a more safety conscious environment. I don't remember such a comprehensive operator's manual when I learned to operate the APC in the 1970s, but the warnings about water crossing and the precautions (prep of veh, pers, safety staff and entry and exit banks) needed before attempting were just as numerous.

---

FORD WATER UP TO 40 INCHES DEEP
WARNING When water depth is unknown or deeper than 40 inches (3.4 feet), do not attempt to ford stream. Carrier may sink and personnel could drown. See task: PREPARATION BEFOREWATER OPERATION (WP 0066 00).

PREPARATION BEFORE WATER OPERATION WARNING Do not perform water operations without flotation bag properly secured and opened. Before starting water operations, perform all carrier PMCS and the Preparation Before Water Operation. Pay particular attention to drain plugs and access covers which must be in place, straight and tight. Failure to do this could result in carrier sinking and loss of life.

Carrier could sink and personnel could drown without track shrouds secured in place. Carrier can have loss of steering without track shrouds. Do not attempt water operation without them

If bilge pumps do not work during water operations, carrier can sink; personnel can be killed. Do not attempt water operations if bilge pumps do not operate.

When power plant door detent screw is missing or does not rub against handle when handle is moved to closed position, power plant door can open and take in water during water operation. Carrier can sink and personnel can drown. Do not attempt water operations when detent screw is missing or improperly adjusted.

Unsecured stowage/load can shift or fall during carrier motion. Personnel can be injured. Secure all stowage/load to eliminate movement regardless of carrier attitude, including inverted position. Carrier can sink and personnel can drown when maximum load (weight of personnel, fuel and/or cargo) is exceeded and/or not properly distributed. Distribute weight of cargo and/or personnel evenly before entering water, per load plan in WP 0106 00

Displaced or damaged ramp and personnel door seals may let water leak into cargo area. Personnel can drown. Check door ramp and seals before closing doors. Do not attempt water operation if there is leakage.

If hatches are closed during water operations, carrier can sink and personnel can be trapped inside and drown. All hatches must be in open position with locking pins installed before water operations.

Carrier can sink during water operations when trim vane is not extended and locked in place and flotation bag is not open. Personnel can be killed. Before entering water, extend and lock trim vane in position for water operations. Open and properly secure flotation bag. NOTE Carriers can float, however, swimming is not allowed. Since the bottom, beneath the surface of the water may have holes, gullies, soft spots and other hazards, carriers must be prepared to float and move away from dangerous areas.

If carrier sinks, personnel can drown when safety belts are fastened. Release safety belts before starting water operations.

Exceeding terrain and water obstacle limits greatly increases chance of sinking. Entering the carrier in water containing a large amount of debris or ice, water moving faster than 2 mph or with waves above 6 inches is high risk. Do not enter the carrier in water containing large amounts of debris, water current greater than 2 mph, or with waves over 6 inches high. Do not exceed limits. The carrier could sink and personnel can drown.

Do not jump the carrier into the water. This could cause the carrier to sink and result in injury or death to personnel. Do not stay in the water if carrier bilge pumps are pumping a steady stream for more than 30 seconds.

Personnel in the carrier should remain still and not move during water operations. Movement may upset the balance of the carrier, causing death or injury

Carrier can sink and personnel can drown if dip (trial water operation) exercise is not conducted before actual water operation in streams or rivers with personnel aboard.

Carrier can sink during water operations when trim vane is not extended and locked in place, and engine grille water barrier is not erected. Personnel can be killed. Before entering water, extend and lock trim vane in proper position for water operations with flotation bag secure. Erect engine grille water barrier.

Carrier can sink and personnel can drown when maximum load (weight of personnel and/or cargo) is exceeded and/or not properly distributed. Do not operate carrier in water if water is above water level strip on trim vane.

Carrier can sink and personnel could be injured or killed if carrier enters or exits on a slope greater than 30% grade. Do not exceed a 30% entry/exit slope.

Enter water head on. Do not attempt to back-up into water. Personnel could be injured or killed.

Personnel should not move during water operations. Personnel movement may upset the balance of the carrier causing death or injury.

Sudden responses to acceleration and deceleration due to throttle, brakes, or opposite travel direction, may cause water to break over front of carrier and enter intake grill or open hatches. Personnel can be killed. Always accelerate and decelerate carrier smoothly and gradually

Do not attempt to exit the water at an angle. The carrier may overturn and sink. Personnel could be killed. Always exit straight up the slope.

---

It could still be fun and perhaps militarily necessary, but it was dangerous in peacetime so I assume that it would be a magnitude beyond perception more dangerous in war.


View attachment 78160


However if I had the choice in crossing (regardless of vehicle type) I'd go this way.


View attachment 78161 View attachment 78162

I will stipulate everything said

And still note that there was, and is a reason, why many nations keep swimming vehicles in their inventory.

This?



Or this?



Or doing this under fire?

Somebody has to get across to the other side and secure the opposite shore to build the bridges to get the heavies across.

Of course helicopters can do that too. Do we have many helicopters available? Are they better armoured and less vulnerable than a swimming vehicle?

PS - Did ride in M113s. Even commanded one once. Never did a water-crossing.

 

[markppcli]

Armored Bridge layer or not, lots of capabilities in doing so. The Armored gear is only good for small gaps, for most crossings this size if needed one could plow dirt over the crossing and make it work until better assets showed up.

Again I mentioned it because you responded to armoured bridge later, which is the only way your doing as opposed river crossing.

CV90, Maruader,(Puma),Wiesel, Tpz, Mowag Piranna,Patria AMV Borsuk, SUPERAV The US and Britain have not invested in amphibious armor, instead focusing on heavier survivable gear.

CV 90 isnt amphibious, Pirhana is variant dependant, Marauder in unfamiliar with did you mean the Marder ? I’ll give you Boris and Patria AMV but that why I left out Poland

Amphibious operations is not a main point of build, but it is still considered.
Many European countries still maintain amphibious capable armored vehicles. Germans have a Few, The Swedish have some, Poland has a few, and a few other Countries. Are they going to cross the Baltic sea, no, but they will cross that river that might swamp other vehicles. It would be pretty crappy if the advance had to stop at the river due to not being able to cross it. Ask the Russians how that went with their floating bridge.

maybe we should be asking why the Russians, who’s whole AFV fleet is supposed to be amphibious, we’re opting for bridges instead of trying to use this amphibious capability while on operations ?

 

[childs56]

maybe we should be asking why the Russians, who’s whole AFV fleet is supposed to be amphibious, we’re opting for bridges instead of trying to use this amphibious capability while on operations ?

full of holes from the enemy.

 

[GR66]

maybe we should be asking why the Russians, who’s whole AFV fleet is supposed to be amphibious, we’re opting for bridges instead of trying to use this amphibious capability while on operations ?

This is an excellent point. The initial drive on Kyiv was stopped in part by intentional flooding of low lying areas by the Ukrainians forcing the Russians (and their swim capable vehicles) to stick to the roads where they could be channelized into kill zones.

That being said, amphibious capability for recce vehicles would be a benefit in route recce and identifying potential crossing points for the main force over larger water barriers. You'd probably be giving up too much in armour/survivability by trying to make your primary combat vehicles amphibious though.

 

[markppcli]

PS - Did ride in M113s. Even commanded one once. Never did a water-crossing.

Well that explains the rose coloured nostalgia

 

[KevinB]

And how the Koreans do it. Built in air bags under the armour skirts.

Yes the South Koreans with all their recent Armor combat experience

 

[KevinB]

full of holes from the enemy.

I know you where some least posting in jest - but it’s a very good point.
Let’s take @Kirkhill ’s SK floater - what happens with artillery or mine fragments to their floating bags…
I’ll take sinking fleet for $2000 Alex.

 

[lenaitch]

It's just that military aircraft are better at dealing with it than army cars with a swimming hobby.

 

[OldSolduer]

WRT bridge building ops - I reckon that would be a very tough thing to do when you're under fire from Arty, Fast Air etc and whatever remotely piloted armed gadgets the enemy can muster.

 

[Prairie canuck]

Amphibious hummer???

 

[Kirkhill]

This is an excellent point. The initial drive on Kyiv was stopped in part by intentional flooding of low lying areas by the Ukrainians forcing the Russians (and their swim capable vehicles) to stick to the roads where they could be channelized into kill zones.

I think the Russians have amply demonstrated their ability to over-promise and under-perform in all fields. It wouldn't surprise me if the Russians were not only missing drain plugs but that their gaskets had perished and the hulls were rusted through in places. Amphibious in name only. Now. 60 years after being built.

That being said, amphibious capability for recce vehicles would be a benefit in route recce and identifying potential crossing points for the main force over larger water barriers. You'd probably be giving up too much in armour/survivability by trying to make your primary combat vehicles amphibious though.

And there we agree.

In the "horses for courses" debate the Light end of the spectrum relies on mobility. Their ability to secure as much terrain as possible with as little effort as possible leaves the Heavy forces available to crack nuts, break sieges and penetrate lines. In other words, to concentrate, to fight effectively and to survive.

Which is my problem with the LAV 6 as a Lightweight Heavy or a Heavyweight Medium.

My preference is for a Mixed Fleet of vehicles. Also known as an abundance of Micro-Fleets. I know the logistical, training and financial burden that entails. But I also believe in supplying people the right tools.

If we're doing the napkin thing then I am looking at a Heavy Brigade, or even a Heavy Regiment if that is all we can afford, that is built around 60 ton tanks. That force needs transport to get the tanks into the game. Given that need for heavy lift aircraft, ships, landing craft, pontoons and bridges than the support vehicles, like the IFVs, can be heavier and non-swimming.

At the other end of the spectrum Light Forces, in my mind, perform in two primary roles. They do the Rapid Insertion/Response job which generally means they mover by air and need light vehicles to get as many vehicles as possible into the air at the same time as possible. But they also are capable of manning static defences in which case they need lots of Engineering assets but their vehicles are going to spend a lot of time parked in Zulu harbours. Maybe their vehicles are NOT a waste per se but they would certainly be under-utilized. Much like the Canadian Cavalry Brigade.

Which brings us back to the bit in the middle. The Medium Force. I am strongly of the opinion that Medium Force should not shade into Heavy Force territory and give up too much of its mobility. When it does so, I believe, it gives up too much of its battlefield utility.


Heavy Forces - by all means - Leos and CV90s and PzHb 2000s and Mexeflottes and LCMs and Big Honking Ships and C17s. All of the above.

Light Forces - two types

Type A - They who also serve when they stand and wait. Unarmoured civilian pattern vehicles for administration and support. With lots of dozers, backhoes, dump-trucks and cement mixers.

Type B - Those who fall from the sky on parachutes or in helicopters. And the vehicles that can be carried with them in their aircraft.

The Medium Force is that amorphous grey force in the middle. For me the bottom end of the Medium scale is defined by things like the JLTV and the BvS10-Viking. The upper end of that scale is .... ??? I don't know. But I believe there is a role for a vehicle that is armoured as much as possible but can still fit inside a C-130 easily (drive on drive off) and that can swim short distances in calm waters. The purpose of the swimming is not to be able to assault into the teeth of the enemy but to be able to cross where the enemy isn't without bringing the enemy's attention to the activity.

Then, of course, the next debates are, "How many of each" and "Where and when to employ them".