One of the most difficult operations is the assault river crossing. A natural obstacle that your enemy can cover with all kinds of nasty shit like arty and direct fire and there are only so many places that are suitable for crossing.
The defender can't be everywhere on a 1200 km front. Infiltration by small units has been working well since March 1918. RV on the other side and secure a crossing for the main force.
So what you’ve done here is compared a shockingly bad attempt at a river crossing to a video of a BMP1 swimming in what clearly an administrative or training environment. I don’t really see your point. I, and @KevinB, mentioned several of the factors which make amphibious capability in vehicles impractical and often unused. If your argument is summed is as “but I like it” that’s fine.
@Kirkhill while I personally have never been in an AVGP, M113, or Bradley doing a swim, I have watched the prep (hours) to simply swim a short section of an inland lake with concrete ramp for a few different vehicles. I’ve also seen several sink during ‘launch’.
As both @markppcli and I have tried to make clear it’s isn’t a viable solution for a lightly armored vehicle. Not only does the prep time cause issues, but also they are extremely slow, unstable with any significant waves, and have issues entering and exiting the water if there aren’t nicely graded hard banks.
The only vehicle I have seen that are actually good at this sort of thing are Hovercraft.
But they also come with enormous issues themselves. I think @Colin Parkinson has some experience with these craft.
If you’re looking for a DOMOPS vehicle in this respect - the BV206 type of system is the best option.
@Kirkhill while I personally have never been in an AVGP, M113, or Bradley doing a swim, I have watched the prep (hours) to simply swim a short section of an inland lake with concrete ramp for a few different vehicles. I’ve also seen several sink during ‘launch’.
As both @markppcli and I have tried to make clear it’s isn’t a viable solution for a lightly armored vehicle. Not only does the prep time cause issues, but also they are extremely slow, unstable with any significant waves, and have issues entering and exiting the water if there aren’t nicely graded hard banks.
The only vehicle I have seen that are actually good at this sort of thing are Hovercraft.
But they also come with enormous issues themselves. I think @Colin Parkinson has some experience with these craft.
If you’re looking for a DOMOPS vehicle in this respect - the BV206 type of system is the best option.
Fine. I would happily take the Bvs. As would the Ukrainians.
I accept that amphibious vehicles are not the answer for long range crossings (Over The Horizon is too far). I accept that crossing under fire is ridiculously hard and requires a D-Day effort.
My contention is that not all water obstacles are Lake Superior. Some are just overgrown creeks.
I also contend that not all water obstacles are covered by fire. Those areas not covered by fire can be located and exploited.
In fact, setting water obstacles aside, my sense of the Ukrainian plan is pretty much that. They are pursuing multiple possible avenues of advance concurrently looking for weaknesses which they can exploit. They are, in my opinion, working around the enemy with the intention of making the enemy's positions no longer viable.
That is why I believe that those river crossings I posted look like training or administrative moves, because the Ukrainians are looking for opportunities to advance without facing enemy fires. When they do they get hit hard and risk the fate of the Russian Convoy in Kiev and the Bilhorivka Battalions River Crossing.
Concentration, or bunching up, seems to get you killed in this situation.
As for prepping the vehicle.....
Once the vehicle is prepped for water crossings how long can you operate on land before you have to re-prep for the next obstacle? Or can you prep once and cross three or four sand bars at once? Three or four creeks? Ridges and Valleys?
As you note the Bv206s/Bv210s seem to transition easily and rapidly from water to land to bog and back again. So it is not beyond the ken of man to build a vehicle that can operate in that fashion.
I would have loved to have those 800 Bv206s that Perrin Beatty was requesting.
The BvS10 looks to my eye like a useful vehicle for operations on a broad front ahead of the Heavies as recce or screen or flank guard as well as a useful support vehicle to keep up with the Heavies.
Beatty was proposing both the Bison AND the Bv206. He got 199 Bisons and 100 Bv206s. Both were amphibious, as was the Grizzly. The Bv206 went places the Bisons and Grizzlies couldn't go. On the other hand the Bisons and Grizzlies covered ground on roads almost twice as fast as the Bv206.
There are approx 30,000 rivers crossing Ukrainian ethnographic territory. Of that number about 23,000 are in Ukraine. With a combined length of nearly 180,000 km, most are small; in Ukraine there are 117 rivers the watercourses of which exceed 100 km, but only 13 that are longer than 500 km (they are noted in table 1).
If we were told the Russians had prepared 180,000 km of tank ditches with trenches, and only had 180,000 troops to cover them, 1 soldier per kilometer to cover the obstacle by fire, would that be considered and obstacle that required a D-Day scale preparation to defeat?
Germany is supplying the Ukrainian army with a large package of defense aid, which includes 64 Bandvagn 206 (Bv206) articulated tracked all-terrain vehicle
en.defence-ua.com
The Germans are supplying these to the Ukrainians - the armoured version of the Bv206.
Fine. I would happily take the Bvs. As would the Ukrainians.
I accept that amphibious vehicles are not the answer for long range crossings (Over The Horizon is too far). I accept that crossing under fire is ridiculously hard and requires a D-Day effort.
My contention is that not all water obstacles are Lake Superior. Some are just overgrown creeks.
I also contend that not all water obstacles are covered by fire. Those areas not covered by fire can be located and exploited.
In fact, setting water obstacles aside, my sense of the Ukrainian plan is pretty much that. They are pursuing multiple possible avenues of advance concurrently looking for weaknesses which they can exploit. They are, in my opinion, working around the enemy with the intention of making the enemy's positions no longer viable.
That is why I believe that those river crossings I posted look like training or administrative moves, because the Ukrainians are looking for opportunities to advance without facing enemy fires. When they do they get hit hard and risk the fate of the Russian Convoy in Kiev and the Bilhorivka Battalions River Crossing.
Concentration, or bunching up, seems to get you killed in this situation.
In Combat generally you must assume that ALL obstacles are covered with fire unless you are inside friendly lines - and even then with UAS being that they are you can't take that for granted.
Once the vehicle is prepped for water crossings how long can you operate on land before you have to re-prep for the next obstacle? Or can you prep once and cross three or four sand bars at once? Three or four creeks? Ridges and Valleys?
As you note the Bv206s/Bv210s seem to transition easily and rapidly from water to land to bog and back again. So it is not beyond the ken of man to build a vehicle that can operate in that fashion.
I would have loved to have those 800 Bv206s that Perrin Beatty was requesting.
The BvS10 looks to my eye like a useful vehicle for operations on a broad front ahead of the Heavies as recce or screen or flank guard as well as a useful support vehicle to keep up with the Heavies.
Beatty was proposing both the Bison AND the Bv206. He got 199 Bisons and 100 Bv206s. Both were amphibious, as was the Grizzly. The Bv206 went places the Bisons and Grizzlies couldn't go. On the other hand the Bisons and Grizzlies covered ground on roads almost twice as fast as the Bv206.
If we were told the Russians had prepared 180,000 km of tank ditches with trenches, and only had 180,000 troops to cover them, 1 soldier per kilometer to cover the obstacle by fire, would that be considered and obstacle that required a D-Day scale preparation to defeat?
Germany is supplying the Ukrainian army with a large package of defense aid, which includes 64 Bandvagn 206 (Bv206) articulated tracked all-terrain vehicle
en.defence-ua.com
The Germans are supplying these to the Ukrainians - the armoured version of the Bv206.
In Combat generally you must assume that ALL obstacles are covered with fire unless you are inside friendly lines - and even then with UAS being that they are you can't take that for granted.
As long as you don't open it up for anything - you are good -- but open a rear hatch and all bets are off...
But as soon as you armor it - the floatation drops to nothing...
Honestly you are all over the map I really have a hard time following you.
In my view the Soviets generally did a better job at amphibious vehicles than the west. Which makes sense as their job was to breech multiple river barriers with amphibious and heliborne assaults, whereas ours were more in the defensive role. Here are some of the successes of the PT-76, I didn't know about the IDF use of them.
@Kirkhill
As both @markppcli and I have tried to make clear it’s isn’t a viable solution for a lightly armored vehicle. Not only does the prep time cause issues, but also they are extremely slow, unstable with any significant waves, and have issues entering and exiting the water if there aren’t nicely graded hard banks.
The only vehicle I have seen that are actually good at this sort of thing are Hovercraft.
There's a role for light vehicles...but as with everything it's "horses for courses" and when you use the wrong vehicle for the wrong role you risk problems.
There's a role for light vehicles...but as with everything it's "horses for courses" and when you use the wrong vehicle for the wrong role you risk problems.
There's a role for light vehicles...but as with everything it's "horses for courses" and when you use the wrong vehicle for the wrong role you risk problems.
U.S. Marines with Light Armored Reconnaissance Marine Course 2-20, Light Armored Reconnaissance Training Company, Advanced Infantry Training Battalion, School of Infantry - West, conducted light armored vehicle swim operations at the Del Mar boat basin on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Feb. 11.
www.dvidshub.net
I have been reading this thread I have to laugh a bit. The US Army has for decades prepared for war in Europe. Lots of river crossings, muddy terrain etc. Built equipment for dealing with this.
Then they spent a few decades fighting in a more Arid environment resulting in less requirement for ability to breech across the soft farm fields and muskeg of Europe. (lots of wadis and narrow roads).
Now here we are trying to figure out how to breech across the soft ground, rivers, creeks and obstacles of Europe again. I have to wonder if we have gotten to heavy in equipment and lost the actual ability to perform the basics effectively.
The AAR of Ukraine will tell us I guess.
In my view the Soviets generally did a better job at amphibious vehicles than the west. Which makes sense as their job was to breech multiple river barriers with amphibious and heliborne assaults, whereas ours were more in the defensive role. Here are some of the successes of the PT-76, I didn't know about the IDF use of them.
Having crawled around a PT-76, I don’t think it did anything well.
Its success with India says more about the Pakistani incompetence in rushing in with the Chaffee ‘light tanks’ (if you’ve seen their armor it’s more along the lines of armoured car.
It’s solely redeeming feature was mobile support in wet terrain - which in this day and age can be done with far more practical systems.
U.S. Marines with Light Armored Reconnaissance Marine Course 2-20, Light Armored Reconnaissance Training Company, Advanced Infantry Training Battalion, School of Infantry - West, conducted light armored vehicle swim operations at the Del Mar boat basin on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Feb. 11.
www.dvidshub.net
I have been reading this thread I have to laugh a bit. The US Army has for decades prepared for war in Europe. Lots of river crossings, muddy terrain etc. Built equipment for dealing with this.
Then they spent a few decades fighting in a more Arid environment resulting in less requirement for ability to breech across the soft farm fields and muskeg of Europe. (lots of wadis and narrow roads).
The US Army still have tons of AVLB and other means for that.
The USMC of course has the AAV and its replacement ACV coming on line.
The boat basin’s on USMC Camps are a prime example however of the terrain the LAV can swim (once sealed for amphibious use).
It has a concrete ramp and it’s open water.
I have to wonder if we have gotten too heavy in equipment and lost the actual ability to perform the basics effectively.
The AAR of Ukraine will tell us I guess.
U.S. Marines with Light Armored Reconnaissance Marine Course 2-20, Light Armored Reconnaissance Training Company, Advanced Infantry Training Battalion, School of Infantry - West, conducted light armored vehicle swim operations at the Del Mar boat basin on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Feb. 11.
www.dvidshub.net
I have been reading this thread I have to laugh a bit. The US Army has for decades prepared for war in Europe. Lots of river crossings, muddy terrain etc. Built equipment for dealing with this.
Then they spent a few decades fighting in a more Arid environment resulting in less requirement for ability to breech across the soft farm fields and muskeg of Europe. (lots of wadis and narrow roads).
Now here we are trying to figure out how to breech across the soft ground, rivers, creeks and obstacles of Europe again. I have to wonder if we have gotten to heavy in equipment and lost the actual ability to perform the basics effectively.
The AAR of Ukraine will tell us I guess.
Is that what article is talking about? Pretty impressive they were adopting Ukrainian lessons learned in 2020.
The key points here are really that even if a vehicle is amphibious it’s not going to be able to do its regular job then just roll into an amphibious situation.
I frankly think this mobility thing is being brought up not by observers writ large, but by one member here.
Is that what article is talking about? Pretty impressive they were adopting Ukrainian lessons learned in 2020.
The key points here are really that even if a vehicle is amphibious it’s not going to be able to do its regular job then just roll into an amphibious situation.
I frankly think this mobility thing is being brought up not by observers writ large, but by one member here.
You know I recall many years ago one of our companies were prepping the 113s for a crossing. It took a while and the safety regulations said each soldier had to wear a flotation vest ( I think) and there had to be a diver on site (IIRC) ready to enter the water to rescue people.
You also have to recce potential crossing sites to gain technical info - the gradient, what the soil is like, currents etc.
The USMC of course has the AAV and its replacement ACV coming on line.
The boat basin’s on USMC Camps are a prime example however of the terrain the LAV can swim (once sealed for amphibious use).
It has a concrete ramp and it’s open water.
Not everything that floats floats, well all the time.
Even my Argo doesn't float well with out all the drain plugs installed, bilge pump working, axles greased, seals in decent shape and not over loaded.
Airpower has been inherently risky, not all weather conditions allow coverage all the time. Artillery now that is a different chat all together.
Being able to ford, float and otherwise cross rivers without bridge support during the initial attack is a must in the European front if your going to keep the fight moving. With the heavy equipment being used now, it makes things that much harder to be able to do.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.encyclopediaofukraine.com
en.defence-ua.com
medium.com
www.dvidshub.net
