Reconnaissance Amphibiosity (If there is such a word)

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
8 September 2006
Messages
796
Reaction score
321
During the 60's, 70's and early 80's nearly all Western reconnaissance vehicles were amphibious - the M113, M1131/2, M114, Luchs, AMX10RC and even the Scorpion family had flotation screens. However, since the 90's this feature has been dropped for the next generation and projected future vehicles, this feature has been dropped. My question is why?

To my view point the feature has an advantage for reconnaissance vehicles as they don't have to stick to road bridges and to get themselves out of trouble if they run into opposing forces.
 
That would be true if the amphibious capability really worked out. In fact it doesn't quite (cumbersome preparation and ultra-slow on water). On the other hand the need for better protection drives up weight, which make floatability more difficult.
In the end, even though it would still be nice to have, it just it isn't worth the while.
 
That would be true if the amphibious capability really worked out. In fact it doesn't quite (cumbersome preparation and ultra-slow on water). On the other hand the need for better protection drives up weight, which make floatability more difficult.
In the end, even though it would still be nice to have, it just it isn't worth the while.
That might depend on where you operate. Depending on design, you don't necessarily need a lot of preparation for entering and exiting water. A ground vehicle in water is certainly slow, so you don't want to cross a lot of water. In my corner of the world, there's lots of very narrow but deep lakes that you might not want to go around either.
 
In actual practice amphibious vehicles aren't that amphibious unless a lot of effort was put into the design and training and the vehicle was made of aluminum. So for instance the USMC's LAV 25 recon vehicles have actual props on them to propel them in water. This adds weight and complexity to the design (and it is a very thin skinned design) but for the USMC clearly a truly, fully amphibious vehicle is required. For most other organizations it just isn't the case.

Also I would not want to cross any body of water that took more than a minute or so...you're absolutely exposed with no cover and no ability to maneuver or run. That's the kind of thing you do if you own the other side or have an artillery bombardment suppressing the far shore, IMO.
 
Amphibious AFVs are neither fish nor fowl. They float poorly with little freeboard. Little freeboard soon sees them swamped by large waves.
While all that armour weight seems excess on the water, it is really only thick enough to stop machinegun fire.

A secondary reason for removing floatation gear from light AFVs is that most fighting during the 21st century has been in arid regions with only a few mountain rivers to cross.
Remember that even the best of amphibious AFVs can only enter and exit water on shallow, hard-surfaced ramps (e.g. the boat launching ramps seen at popular vacation lakes.)

The USMC has experimented with a few high-speed, planning amphibious AFVs. At 30 knots, they are much more difficult for defenders to damage. That's what I would want to ride onto a "hot" beach!

The most interesting recent development is a South Korean AFV with inflatable pontoons that extend outboard of tracks. These pontoons provide significantly better floatation, but can only be driven down wide launching ramps ... almost double the width of the basic vehicle.
 
How much difference did the floatation 'aids' on the Australian M113 fire support vehicle and the marine version of the AMX10P make.

And how much faith would you place in the pontoons on the Korean K21, I have a childish image of them being shot to bits.

Hasn't there been an accident recently with an AAV7 when a number of crew were drowned.

Wasn't there a pathfinder version of the FV432 planned that had additional equipment; such as land anchors, was amphibious and intended to assist other vehicles to cross rivers.
 
I thought one of the problems was that you rattled around in your CVR(T) and when you put your screen up, they were holed, one hole and your not going anywhere.

All the other points are also valid. The russians made the PT76, which really was amphibious, but its very generous to call it a tank. But this was for the purpose of invading Europe, and getting to the Channel coast before USA could re-enforce.

Given drones/Helicopters etc, why would you need amphib recon, you can drop a squad and a jeep anywhere. If the beach is clear, bring your landing ships in. If not clear, your not going to bring anything in.
 
I think there is some confusion concerning amphibious land operations and amphibious landing operations. One of those absolutely requires fully amphibious (and marinized) vehicles that can absorb some amount of surf, the other requires floating temporarily and having slow enough moving current in a river (or small pond/lake) such that the vehicle isn't pushed significantly downstream. The original post seemed to be referring to the latter.
 
I think the original question was about why Western armies lost interest in vehicles which could wade or float across water obstacles? (Marine units were not mentioned).
It was clear from the late 60s that it was easier and cheaper to put some form of bridge across, either launched by a tank carrier or unfolded like the ribbon bridge which copied the Soviet PMP.
BAOR recce units were already deployed forward in transition to war so didnt need to bypass destroyed bridges. Same was true of US arm cav in the Fulda Gqp.
 
I think the original question was about why Western armies lost interest in vehicles which could wade or float across water obstacles? (Marine units were not mentioned).
It was clear from the late 60s that it was easier and cheaper to put some form of bridge across, either launched by a tank carrier or unfolded like the ribbon bridge which copied the Soviet PMP.
BAOR recce units were already deployed forward in transition to war so didnt need to bypass destroyed bridges. Same was true of US arm cav in the Fulda Gqp.
Yes, we were only planning a defensive war. USSR was planning offensive, hence the PT76. Which was for the army to get over lakes rivers etc. Almost sounds easy for Nato......
 
I think the original question was about why Western armies lost interest in vehicles which could wade or float across water obstacles? (Marine units were not mentioned).
It was clear from the late 60s that it was easier and cheaper to put some form of bridge across, either launched by a tank carrier or unfolded like the ribbon bridge which copied the Soviet PMP.
BAOR recce units were already deployed forward in transition to war so didnt need to bypass destroyed bridges. Same was true of US arm cav in the Fulda Gqp.
Thanks, I got drawn a bit of subject from my own question.

Your post has explained why the Scout SV requirement includes a bridge carrier.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom