# Is the LAV 3 amphibious?



## Curtis.Waters (16 Nov 2013)

Is the LAV 3 amphibious like the LAV 25? If not would it be worth it to upgrade it to be amphibious? It makes sense because of the Navy's Amphibious Assault Ship Project.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Nov 2013)

Curtis.Waters said:
			
		

> Is the LAV 3 amphibious like the LAV 25? If not would it be worth it to upgrade it to be amphibious? It makes sense because of the Navy's Amphibious Assault Ship Project.



I'm not an armoured vehicle guru, but I don't think its super easy to "upgrade" something to be amphibious. LAV 25 is more closely aligned with the Bison/Coyote, whereas the Bison used to be amphibious capable.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2013)

Our Navy does not have an Amphibious Assault Ship Project.

Our LAVs are not swimmers.  We don't need that capability as we have armoured bridging capability....oh wait.


----------



## MilEME09 (16 Nov 2013)

Curtis.Waters said:
			
		

> It makes sense because of the Navy's Amphibious Assault Ship Project.



Just to get you on the right track, this "project" is nothing more then rumour based on comments made years ago, the RCN at this time has no interest in Amphibious Assault Ships


----------



## Curtis.Waters (17 Nov 2013)

A few years back our navy was looking into purchasing two Mistral class ships, the program may have been canceled. I looked further into this and from what I have found the LAV III lacks only a snorkel and propulsion system to be amphibious.


----------



## Tank Troll (17 Nov 2013)

Curtis.Waters said:
			
		

> A few years back our navy was looking into purchasing two Mistral class ships, the program may have been canceled. I looked further into this and from what I have found the LAV III lacks only a snorkel and propulsion system to be amphibious.



Actually it takes more than that to make it amphibious. It all so needs to be water tight (big thing there) it also needs a bilge pump and drainage system, it would need a trim vain, and a boat like hull. It would also need to be designed so that it was evenly balanced when it was buoyant (floating) It would need a steering system for when it was swimming.  So to make it amphibious you would need to design it from the ground up to have that capability, which isn't worth the cost compared to the return.


----------



## caocao (17 Nov 2013)

I remember when i took my Grizzly across a fjord in Norway...those were the days!


----------



## McG (17 Nov 2013)

The Canadian LAV III is not amphibious.  However, the OEM has done the engineering and prototyping work to build an amphibious variant.  You can google images of the Mowag Pirhana III with LAV 25 turret swimming.  I do not know but suspect that the amphibious LAV III must make trade-offs of armour if compared with our LAV III.


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Nov 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> The Canadian LAV III is not amphibious.  However, the OEM has done the engineering and prototyping work to build an amphibious variant.  You can google images of the Mowag Pirhana III with LAV 25 turret swimming.  I do not know but suspect that the amphibious LAV III must make trade-offs of armour if compared with our LAV III.



Another solution, and not a ideal one, is a flotation screen. This was used most notably with the World War Two Sherman Duplex Drive tank, but was available for the M109 and the British FV 432 APC. This still does not address the issue of how to propel and steer the vehicle. The Sherman had propellers and rudders while the others relied on their tracks for both, as did our screenless M113A1s. I believe our Grizzlies and Cougars had propellors by am prepared to be wrong on this.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Nov 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I believe our Grizzlies and Cougars had propellors by am prepared to be wrong on this.



Yep, it was called the *Marine Drive* which was also on the Bison.  They also had a rudder system for steering (slightly different config).


----------



## George Wallace (17 Nov 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Another solution, and not a ideal one, is a flotation screen. This was used most notably with the World War Two Sherman Duplex Drive tank, but was available for the M109 and the British FV 432 APC. This still does not address the issue of how to propel and steer the vehicle. The Sherman had propellers and rudders while the others relied on their tracks for both, as did our screenless M113A1s. I believe our Grizzlies and Cougars had propellors by am prepared to be wrong on this.



Our Grizzlies and Cougars had propellers and rudders.  Future generations of the AVGP/LAV family did away with the Marine Drives as it was costly to maintain and seldom used.

I believe the LAV III design is still capable of floating, but it has no way to propel itself in the water.


----------



## Franko (17 Nov 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Our Grizzlies and Cougars had propellers and rudders.  Future generations of the AVGP/LAV family did away with the Marine Drives as it was costly to maintain and seldom used.
> 
> I believe the LAV III design is still capable of floating, but it has no way to propel itself in the water.



The last LAV I saw near lost lake was not floating in any way, shape or form.

Regards


----------



## Towards_the_gap (17 Nov 2013)

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> The last LAV I saw near lost lake was not floating in any way, shape or form.
> 
> Regards



Indeed, any displacement that the LAV III may inherently have is negated by the quantity of fluids normally resident in the hull.

That and the fact it would leak like a sieve. Those rubber seals are not the best maintained part of the vehicle.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Nov 2013)

Wasn't one of the main reason the Coyote and LAV III weren't swimmers the higher bridge class?


----------



## George Wallace (17 Nov 2013)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Actually it takes more than that to make it amphibious. It all so needs to be water tight (big thing there) it also needs a bilge pump and drainage system, ...



Which I believe it has.



			
				Tank Troll said:
			
		

> it would need a trim vain, ....



A simple mod.   



			
				Tank Troll said:
			
		

> and a boat like hull.



Which it has, being more or less an upgraded version of the AVGP family.



			
				Tank Troll said:
			
		

> It would also need to be designed so that it was evenly balanced when it was buoyant (floating).......



Easily fixed by adding ballast, as we did with the M113 family of vehicles, as well as the AVGP family.



			
				Tank Troll said:
			
		

> It would need a steering system for when it was swimming.



This is the expensive part.  The Marine Drives are expensive, not only to design, but to maintain.  They would have to be designed to have protection from damage while moving through rough terrain on land.



			
				Tank Troll said:
			
		

> ....  So to make it amphibious you would need to design it from the ground up to have that capability, which isn't worth the cost compared to the return.



You may not have to design it from the ground up, but the cost would be the deciding factor for sure; especially if it were very seldom used.  

Don't get me wrong.  I am a strong believer that a true Recce Vehicle should be amphibious in order to perform its role.  Not all bridges will be there when you arrive; Right Moriarty?  The capability to cross bodies of deep water, lakes and rivers (not oceans), give Recce an element of stealth and surprise.  Not all water is fordable.  ALVBs are not always available.  It is an ability that we have loss, and monetary constraints are the major reason.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Nov 2013)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Indeed, any displacement that the LAV III may inherently have is negated by the quantity of fluids normally resident in the hull.
> 
> That and the fact it would leak like a sieve. Those rubber seals are not the best maintained part of the vehicle.



Driver maintenance or lack of.   >


----------



## Tank Troll (17 Nov 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Which I believe it has.
> 
> A simple mod.
> 
> ...



They are some what water tight as per TTG's post.
No bilge pump there for no drainage system.
In order to put a trim vain on you just can weld it there and say "Voila" a trim vain so not that easy of a mod.
The hull mainly the front glacis plate is flat and square it needs to be angular like the bow of a ship, so it can cut through the water like Cougar, Grizzly, and Coyote
Adding Ballast is easy during swim camp, not as easy in real life applications. It has ballast in it all ready, just not in the right spot, it is called troops and kit. I Remember all the prep it took to be able to swim 4 vehicles. It took half the day before they even saw water, then half the day just getting them balanced right. By the time we could swim them the day was over, and we had to go out the next day to do it.

I completely agree with you about the part it would play with Recce mission. However unless you can come up with a recce vehicle that can take the same IED blast that a Leo II can and still be swim capable then you need identify it, and sell it to the powers that be in Wally World North.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Nov 2013)

A few points:

Shape of bow only aids in cutting through the water.  M113 family did not have a "ships bow" and were able to move in water.

Bilge pumps are a simple addition.  Their being cut from the current family of vehicles can probably be boiled down to one of the many "cost cutting" measures taken in their manufacture.  There were many sacrifices made to keep costs down.

Trim vane is not a major redesign, as it was incorporated on earlier versions and again, with not requirement to have Marine Drive due to costs, it was taken off.

Ballast during 'Swim Camps' was to compensate for lack of 'Combat Loads' of ammo and kit.  Again, not a significant problem if the unit has the skills and knowledge to use.  We are overly "Safety conscious" and that can be time consuming.   Crew skills and knowledge are also a prime factor, not to mention their dedication to doing proper maint. 

Point made earlier, the overall weight of the vehicle is increasing, so its buoyancy will also be affected.  If it now is too heavy to float, it will be restricted to what depths it will be able to ford.  To add "Submersion Hydraulics" would be very expensive, so fording depths greater than the height of the hull would likely not be possible with short preparation times.


----------



## Loachman (17 Nov 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Another solution, and not a ideal one, is a flotation screen. This was used most notably with the World War Two Sherman Duplex Drive tank, but was available for the M109 and the British FV 432 APC.



I know an Officer (retired, now) of the 16th/5th Lancers whose Scorpion sank in whatever river flows through Hameln when the exhaust system burned through the floatation screen.


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Nov 2013)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I know an Officer (retired, now) of the 16th/5th Lancers whose Scorpion sank in whatever river flows through Hameln when the exhaust system burned through the floatation screen.



It's the Weser. These sorts of things used to happen to fractionalized cavalry.   ;D


----------



## Towards_the_gap (17 Nov 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Driver maintenance or lack of.   >



Easy to say, but you try convincing a driver that it's necessary to clean and silicone lube every bit of rubber on a hatch. That's assuming it's still there, I recall looking at most hatch seals (not the dragoon kind either hahahahahaha) and thinking 'hmm, if we get in a CBRN threat environment I'm screwed' as I idly toyed with the bits of dessicated rubber hanging from the bare metal of the hatch rim. 

Also, with the amount of repairs/refurb still required by the fleet, I doubt you're going to find any 2nd line unit that would be happy to start modding LAV III's, adding trim vanes, marine drives, periscopes, torpedo tubes, sails and whatnot. When I left we were having a hard time keeping up with annual inspections, let alone major maintenance. It was a constant matter of robbing peter to pay interest to paul, balancing the VOR's and the road worthy vehicles. Then you'd roll out the gate on ex and tow half your fleet back within 48 hours due to breakdowns, and suddenly finding yourself pretending LSVW's were ELAV's.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Nov 2013)

Piranhas swim in Brazil..... pass it on  :-*









http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Brazil-Grows-its-Piranha-III-Vehicle-Fleet-05176/


----------



## Towards_the_gap (17 Nov 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Piranhas swim in Brazil..... pass it on  :-*



When you don't take part in expeditionary wars for 10 years straight you find the time to do things like swim APC's.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2013)

No, we fritter our time and resources away on other things like determining which funding pool the mens's Christmas dinner should be paid out of, what historical era our ranks should be modeled after and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? 

The perhaps one excuse in the Sandbox is since there were no real water features to swim across, there was no need to develop or train for that particular skill. In the larger picture, it was decided somewhere that the cost/benefit ratio of having amphibious mobility did not work out. People like George and I might disagree, but we don't get a say in the matter.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Nov 2013)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> When you don't take part in expeditionary wars for 10 years straight you find the time to do things like swim APC's.



Like these guys....


----------



## Robert0288 (18 Nov 2013)

That seems a canoe wake away from turning into a sub.


----------



## cupper (18 Nov 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Like these guys....



Sure, throw the recovery asset in the water. What could possibly be wrong with that? ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Nov 2013)

Note the Safety Boat?  And I swear that LAV was getting lower in the water......  ;D


----------



## dapaterson (18 Nov 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u6cd-qUDtw


----------



## cupper (18 Nov 2013)

So, the answer is, encase it in plastic it will float.  :nod:


----------



## Towards_the_gap (18 Nov 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Like these guys....



Sorry

When you don't take part in expeditionary wars for 10 years straight on a shoestring budget, you find the time to do things like swim APC's.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Nov 2013)

That video reminded me of Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini the way that the Driver was hesitating to get INTO the water........


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Nov 2013)

I think it all depends on what one calls "amphibious", especially in relation to (non-existent) amphibious assault ships.

The limited capability of some APC's and tanks to "swim" across some limited distances of flat calm waters, so as to cross small rivers and lakes in your way  is not exactly an "amphibious" capability - which would require the capability of landing from a reasonably long distance of ocean coast through waves and the surf.

 The Marines may "swim" their LAV III in that video, but when it comes to actual ladings from the 'phibs, they only swim their AAV-7's (true amphibious APC's) and land the LAV's using landing crafts.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Nov 2013)

> General Dynamics Marine Personnel Carrier Completes Critical Marine Corps Swim and Human Factors Testing
> 
> STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich. – General Dynamics Land Systems’ Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) vehicle successfully completed the U.S. Marine Corps’ water performance swim and human factors testing at the Amphibious Vehicle Test Branch (AVTB), in Camp Pendleton, Calif. General Dynamics Land Systems is a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD).
> 
> ...




Maybe the CCV money could be spent buying some basic Bison 2s (LAV-Log) type vehicles based on the LAVIII, with amphibious capabilities.  Some of the rest of the money could be added to the LAV Up programme to make some portion of the rest of the fleet amphibious.

Then, perhaps, the CA could cross rivers like the St Lawrence, Fraser, MacKenzie, Saskatchewan, Otonabee (look it up) without having to sign a government contract to get a bridge built.

And, if the water is calm enough, and the ship is close enough to shore, they might even be able to come ashore from the sea.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Nov 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And, if the water is calm enough, and the ship is close enough to shore, they might even be able to come ashore from the sea.



Of course this would also require the appropriate purchase of the appropriate Engineer Vehicles to prepare the entry and exit points on the shorelines at said water crossings sites.   >


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Nov 2013)

How did we get from 'Is the LAV 3 amphibious?' to trying to define a role and purpose for amphibious vehicles of which we have no need or mandate?


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Nov 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> How did we get from 'Is the LAV 3 amphibious?' to trying to define a role and purpose for amphibious vehicles of which we have no need or mandate?



Or money to buy.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Nov 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Or money to buy.



Need? Yes (rivers and lakes abound in Canada - salt water excursions would be nice but are not critical)
Mandate? No (and that's a shame)
Money? Yes (see unused capital returned to General Revenues and also CCV funds - not to mention funds directed to Canadian companies for being Canadian).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Nov 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Need? Yes (rivers and lakes abound in Canada - salt water excursions would be nice but are not critical)
> Mandate? No (and that's a shame)
> Money? Yes (see unused capital returned to General Revenues and also CCV funds - not to mention funds directed to Canadian companies for being Canadian).



It's a pie in the sky.

That money would never be reallocated.

Keeping swimmers viable is a maintenance intensive task. The costs to manpower, training and parts is enormous.

Any around here, that remember the swim camps we had, would agree.

Vehicles were hardly out of the box and a couple of years old before they were quarantined from swimming.

Frankly, it's not worth it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Nov 2013)

Crawled around a PT-76, that thing was designed to be amphibious first and foremost, large internal volume. It gave up some stuff to be that. At the end of the day you don't need everything to swim, just some that can do it well.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Nov 2013)

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 (18 Nov 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ... 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 (19 Nov 2013)

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 (19 Nov 2013)

GR66 said:
			
		

> 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 (19 Nov 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> 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 (19 Nov 2013)

GR66 said:
			
		

> 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 (19 Nov 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> 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 (19 Nov 2013)

GR66 said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Nov 2013)

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 (19 Nov 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> 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 (20 Nov 2013)

cupper said:
			
		

> 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 (20 Nov 2013)

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 (20 Nov 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> 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 (20 Nov 2013)

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 (20 Nov 2013)

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 (22 Nov 2013)

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 (22 Nov 2013)

Gen. Cormer said:
			
		

> 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.


----------

