Jump to content


Photo

Usmc Amphibious Combat Vehicle


  • Please log in to reply
298 replies to this topic

#281 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,293 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 11 June 2017 - 0724 AM

You're still sloppy, as 1972 had no AAV-7, just LVTP-7. You are guessing that deliveries began in 1971; not true.The usual MOE is inservice, which means issued to units, that would be 2d Amtrac Bn in 72.
 
Nobody has ever stated the AAVs are to engage other AFVs. Another falsehood on your part. You need to revise your notion of tactical doctrine.
 
I countered your claim on the LAV with the Congressional stricture on its procurement. You infer possible corruption but that could have only happened later. Another obscuration and falsehood. 
 
LVA and LVX were mere technical excursions, no prototypes ere built. Try to get real. There were no four decades of AAV development. The mission of the USMC includes continuous study of all amphibious equipment. The decision to go into production is not one made by the USMC but DOD.
 
One cud go on n on.....
 
You are deceptive and unreliable.

 
LVT-7 = AAV-7, it was just redesignated in 1987. It's the very same vehicles. Petty designation conventions are of no significance to my statements here.

 

-------------------------------------

 

Nobody has ever stated the AAVs are to engage other AFVs. Another falsehood on your part. You need to revise your notion of tactical doctrine.

That's not a falsehood on my part, you liar. You lied by claiming it is. I was replying to Colin, who wrote:

However it is still likely the AAV-7 is going to meet the foes that were designed at the same time it was. The majority of threat vehicles are BTR's, BMP's T-55/72/64/62/80 or variation on that.

That was even quoted in my reply.

 

I wrote

Besides, the AAV-7 isn't prepared to fight any MBT and I doubt it was built with BMP or BTR in mind.

as a reply, which is perfectly fine. The AAV-7 clearly isn't prepared to fight any MBT with its weak armament (50cal or 50cal + 40 mm AGL), and I have the 100% exclusive authority on knowing what I doubt.

Factual statements, no falsehoods.

 

Learn to comprehend simple English texts.
-------------------------------------

 

The first two vehicles were handed over to 2nd Amphibious Tractor Battalion at Camp Lejeune for familiarization (not troops testing) in 1971.
Source: Steven Zaloga

Other sources write specifically about August 1971.

Do your homework. I see no reason to assume that an author made up such a very specific claim for no gain back in 1987.

 

-------------------------------------

 

You did not counter anything about LAVs. My claim that the USMC could not get an armoured combat vehicle developed from scratch to operational service post-1972 is based on it failing to do so in many attempts during that timeframe. Its adoption of a modification of a foreign design is not part of the scope of that claim. You're not addressing or countering my claim when you write about those Swiss-developed 8x8 vehicles.

 

-------------------------------------

 

And I know you "could go on", but every time you bring some of your points forward I shoot them down. They're nitpicking at best, based on you not being able to read at times and outright crap some other times. What you cannot do is actually disprove my point about the failure to develop armoured combat vehicles despite decades of expensive attempts by both army and marine corps.

 

 

So, you claim I'm deceptive and unreliable. Well, you don't prove it.

 

Now I tell you what you are:

You are TERRIBLY butthurt that your favourite armed bureaucracy sucks and is a leech on the citizens of its nation, wasting fortunes with its incompetence. And I'm pointing it out.

So cognitive dissonance kicks in, butthurt kicked in, and now you're hostile to me while being 100% incapable of disproving my correct point.

Moreover, you demonstrate again and again that in your blind hostility you cannot even comprehend texts any more, as shown by criticising what wasn't written and you cannot focus as demonstrated by your pretense that criticizing something that's not on my point would somehow counter the same.

 

Well, either that or you're simply a grumpy senile old man in which case I should probably be nicer once the others stop thinking of you as an authority on anything.



#282 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,293 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 11 June 2017 - 0724 AM

double post

 

 

@bd1;

production during the Vietnam war is the closest thing to your answer, since WW3 was expected to last something ranging from hours to weeks, wartime production would have been insignificant.


Edited by lastdingo, 11 June 2017 - 0726 AM.


#283 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 11 June 2017 - 1119 AM

You are so hot on proof and not being found a liar, I let you justify this tripe. Have a nice day!

double post

 

 

@bd1;

production during the Vietnam war is the closest thing to your answer, since WW3 was expected to last something ranging from hours to weeks, wartime production would have been insignificant.

 

So, you claim I'm deceptive and unreliable. Well, you don't prove it.

 

Now I tell you what you are:

You are TERRIBLY butthurt that your favourite armed bureaucracy sucks and is a leech on the citizens of its nation, wasting fortunes with its incompetence. And I'm pointing it out.

So cognitive dissonance kicks in, butthurt kicked in, and now you're hostile to me while being 100% incapable of disproving my correct point.

Moreover, you demonstrate again and again that in your blind hostility you cannot even comprehend texts any more, as shown by criticising what wasn't written and you cannot focus as demonstrated by your pretense that criticizing something that's not on my point would somehow counter the same.

 

Well, either that or you're simply a grumpy senile old man in which case I should probably be nicer once the others stop thinking of you as an authority on anything.

 



#284 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:everything (almost)

Posted 11 June 2017 - 1142 AM

LD fails to understand the difference between failed vs cancelled.



#285 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,293 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 11 June 2017 - 1352 PM

LD fails to understand the difference between failed vs cancelled.

 

Which of course is wrong (and I'm being nice to you here because I think you knew it was wrong), but assuming that you mean there's a face-saving difference:

 

In either case the bureaucracy had stuff developed that was not considered worthy of introduction by those who legitimately and legally are the ones who decide about it.

Both technically failed and politically cancelled programs cost money and yield no deterrence & defence value.

Functionally, both are the same.

 

I think it's quite obvious that both the Marines and the Army drew up requirements that led to successor vehicle designs that were not worth it, and often technically too convoluted.

- EFV etc. were over-specialised and way too expensive by design

- Crusader was clearly too ambitious and did cost multiple times what a PzH 2000 did cost

- FCS was devised on wrong premises about survivability through situational awareness

- GCS was devised on basis of exaggerated expectations for passive protection, an overreaction to FCS' fault

- RAH-66 was devised without a clear idea what radar stealth is good for in a helicopter at all, and grew way too expensive

One can blame political action for the XM-8 AGS's demise, but not in those cases above.



#286 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 534 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 June 2017 - 1611 PM

Boxer isn't a relevant example since they isn't meant for combat, but for transportation.

Don't tell either the Lithuanian or Australian Armies that! They don't seem to agree.

Edited by 2805662, 11 June 2017 - 1612 PM.


#287 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 12 June 2017 - 0048 AM

LD is boorish and a bore at once. He waltzes through TN pages, spreading his pet theories about how corrupt or systematically flawed various procurement systems are, then claims he has proven this with some samples of apples and oranges. The facts remain that weapons systems of all kinds, ships, planes, AFVs and arms come into and exit service and some are considered successful, others problematic and there are failures. None of these prove [or as he continues to insist, 'falsifies'] his point, they remain sui generis samples, nothing more.

 

Armed with such speculation he then tears at the fiber of military organizations and political departments, always alleging fraud, corruption and systemic failures. There is no proof, except his pointing out some factoids. That is not the same thing.

 

Whether he has anything to teach us remains to be seen. We know he has uncommon wisdom and makes no errors, because he is always saying he has proven this or that, or 'falsified' it, heh....

 

Funny how he responds that one is butthurt by his claims, he must have a fascination for masculine butts. This grumpy old man is bored stiff by his assertions and trolling, and recommends that nothing he states be accepted without some documentation or further investigation on one's own part. Ex caveat emptor.

 

Panzermann has a good thread here. The poor signal to noise ratio is not his doing.


Edited by Ken Estes, 12 June 2017 - 0049 AM.


#288 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,090 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 12 June 2017 - 0238 AM

You should see the other thread where he tries to pass as a LMG expert... :D



#289 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 12 June 2017 - 0553 AM

I always found the USMC AAAV/EFV a bit hard to accept, because I truly believed that the LCAC was the real solution, bringing the surface portion of an amphibious assault freedom from hydrography, sea state and sea mines. There was always some fussing about not using the LCAC in face of direct fire, but I always held that the LCAC could go in just as any other assault craft had in the past. If they did not do well, then what would a larger number of rather helpless amtracs do?

 

In 1973 I wrote some of that in the Marine Corps Gazette, and it was republished for effect by them abridged for the AAAV project in Oct/1989:

a3w1.jpg

 

 

By then, I had gotten the attention of Maj Jim Feigley, asst to the AAAV Project Manager, when I remarked, "Jim, nobody is going to pay $4 million for a f*cking amtrac!" That was after I had written for him the 'seamless ship to objective movement' concept that placed the AAAV in tandem with the LCAC force for the phib assault. He used that throughout, and I later repeated it for USMC Concepts Division as part of my "SHIP-TO-OBJECTIVE MANEUVER: A Tactical Concept for the Conduct of Amphibious Power Projection Operations in the Early 21st Century" (MCCDC, Quantico 1997)

 

Years later, BG Jim Feigley was the PM/AAAV and helped me with contemporary source material for a book project. My last glimpse of the project was a 2007 command chronology of the PM in the USMC archives, noting that they were in full stop mode while the estimated $14.5M/vehicle cost was being reviewed. 

 

The project was of course cancelled by the SecDef in early 2011 because it had become a big budget item and the competition by other projects left it the loser, regardless of its merits. It had been in the sights of Mr Gates and his predecessors for quite some time, just as was the case for the MV-22 tilt-rotor. So in the end nobody wanted to pay $14-20+Million for an amtrac, either.

 

AAAV/EFV still lives on, though. When I visited the EFV test branch in 2016, I saw the latest version of the prototype and was told that two of them would be transferred to NavSeaSystems for further research into the problems of high speed waterborne AFVs. It's also clear that the new version of the AAV7 series [AAV SU]has its composite armor blocks derived from the EFV. They also gave me a copy of a 500 page summary of the troop tests of EFV, which did include full ergonomic evals for the crew and embarked troops, to include full testing of the ability of the troops to go into action after riding that beast the doctrinal 25 nm distance at high speed planing on the water to the beach.  That certainly undercut my opinion that nobody would be in fighting trim after such a ride.

 

We shall see. The next decision point for the ACV program to choose a highspeed variant will be 2025.



#290 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,293 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 12 June 2017 - 0721 AM

The Chinese are experimenting with high speed amphibious vehicles, but their test vehicle doesn't look like a combat vehicle.

 

http://china-defense...amphibious.html



#291 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:everything (almost)

Posted 12 June 2017 - 1126 AM

Comanche was canceled because it had no role in post cold war era. 



#292 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 14 June 2017 - 0143 AM

Early [1960s] USN/USMC investigations of high speed craft for phibops focused on cargo carriers.

 

https://books.google...g craft&f=false

 

52.jpg

 

7f615f8edfc7f9ce35c4f775781ce659.jpg

 

Even one from the 1950s

 

401345082857_1_0_1.jpg



#293 dragon1w4e5

dragon1w4e5

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 42 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 0242 AM

TERREX 2, Super AV & ΑΑV-7Α1

DSC02340.jpg ACV-_Ship-_Ops-bae002-1.png ACV-_Ship-_Ops-saic04-1.png
 



#294 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 24 June 2017 - 0721 AM

Don't we get to see if it can float??



#295 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 26 June 2017 - 2358 PM

1434577874274.jpg?itok=0-JpYAN-

 

I see how it cuts through the surfline. So I suppose it floats OK, just wanted to see the freeboard it has in an open seaway.


Edited by Ken Estes, 26 June 2017 - 2359 PM.


#296 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,044 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peek-a-boo, I'm behind you.
  • Interests:Wholesome stuff.

Posted 27 June 2017 - 0549 AM

*checks thread because it's been a while*

*nothing much has changed*

*posts this post*

*leaves*

#297 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 27 June 2017 - 1557 PM

Duh?



#298 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,382 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 31 August 2017 - 1530 PM

USMC AAV-P7/A1s belonging to Charlie Company, 4th Assault Amphibian Battalion operating as part of Hurricane Harvey relief efforts in Friendswood, Texas, 8/29/2017:

 

 

Some still photos of USMC amphibians at work:

 

21231569_10155701268444490_4529230686928

 

Company-C-4th-Assault-Amphibian-Battalio

 

Alpha and Bravo companies of this same Battalion served during the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts in 2005.



#299 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,870 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 01 September 2017 - 0841 AM

As big as they are, they probably won't have to actually swim much, but they are still very useful.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users