Infantry Vehicles

[Furniture]

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.

Weather has less of an impact on flight operations than amphibious operations.

Air support isn't flying IFR(I follow rivers/roads) these days...

 

[Underway]

Weather has less of an impact on flight operations than amphibious operations.

Yep. The water is trying to kill you the moment you leave the wall.

 

[Furniture]

Yep. The water is trying to kill you the moment you leave the wall.

In fairness, it's trying to kill you as soon as you leave the ground too.

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

 

[childs56]

Weather has less of an impact on flight operations than amphibious operations.

Well you need water to conduct amphib ops, I guess if your in a drought condition with no water, it means no amphib ops. To much water means you might need boats.

Air support isn't flying IFR(I follow rivers/roads) these days...

Never said it di, It has limitations with weather conditions both in the air and on the ground.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

Crawled through a couple myself, it has a lot of internal volume which likley gave it decent flotation. None of the light vehicles of that era had much more in the way of armour and keep in mind, that was only one of their types. Such as these below. The Soviets had to cross the water obstacles that NATO would take advantage of, if they wanted to succeed. So they emphasised the function more so than NATO. Keep in mind the ribbon bridge was a Soviet invention we stole.

Along with BRDM's, BTR-60's, BMP-1 to 3 and likley other vehicles I missed. A real Soviet water crossing would have been a sight to behold

 

[markppcli]

Well you need water to conduct amphib ops, I guess if your in a drought condition with no water, it means no amphib ops. To much water means you might need boats.

Never said it di, It has limitations with weather conditions both in the air and on the ground.

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

 

[markppcli]

I wonder how many rivers are in Europe they can span with a 60' span? Looks like many are closer to 100'

AVBL won’t do every river, it’s why we have have proper engineer bridging assets. I don’t know how many AFVs are going to make it to the other side of a flowing 100 m river. They’re generally quite limited in terms of current and crest.

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.

Hence the prep that makes them sub optimal.

The civilian market has lots of out of the box equipment to bridge the gap.

civilian bridging equipment ? Is it armoured? How long are their bridges ? I’m very curious as I’ve never heard of a civilian armoured bridge layer.

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.

And yet most European nations have looked at amphibious capabilities and said “not worth it.”

 

[markppcli]

Crawled through a couple myself, it has a lot of internal volume which likley gave it decent flotation. None of the light vehicles of that era had much more in the way of armour and keep in mind, that was only one of their types. Such as these below. The Soviets had to cross the water obstacles that NATO would take advantage of, if they wanted to succeed. So they emphasised the function more so than NATO. Keep in mind the ribbon bridge was a Soviet invention we stole.

Along with BRDM's, BTR-60's, BMP-1 to 3 and likley other vehicles I missed. A real Soviet water crossing would have been a sight to behold

I agree, all those vehicles sinking to the bottom of the Danube would have been and incredible sight.

 

[KevinB]

I agree, all those vehicles sinking to the bottom of the Danube would have been and incredible sight.

Well keep in mind a lot of the USSR/Russian also had snorkels etc (albeit most where too long to actually get fresh air in and the exhaust out - leading to Carbon Monoxide poisoning and death in any fording attempt that lasted more than 5 or some minutes.


As far as water crossings go, several years ago when down in Dan Neck, I asked on if the Squadron Chief’s what they did for beach assaults, as they had their stuff in dry bags his answer was “simple, find a different beach that wasn’t occupied” as trying to assault out of the water was suicidal.
Based on all that we have seen in Ukraine, I’d say that also applies outside of Tier 1 entities, and unless you really really need to breach from the water (like D Day) then you are best served by either going a different route - or wiping out anything in your path before you start to cross.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

True, but that "Picking a different beach" was not going to be an option for the Soviets. NATO was going to use those linear water obstacles and the Soviet had to get across them. Smoke screens and lots of artillery and air support was going to be involved by the Soviets, along with a lot of follow up engineering resources.

 

[daftandbarmy]

True, but that "Picking a different beach" was not going to be an option for the Soviets. NATO was going to use those linear water obstacles and the Soviet had to get across them. Smoke screens and lots of artillery and air support was going to be involved by the Soviets, along with a lot of follow up engineering resources.

Now that we don't have that problem at the same scale, and we haven't had to invade Normandy (or the equivalent) for awhile, it might be time to rethink our river/ water crossing requirements.

And it will more likely involve a greater emphasis on engineering resources, within an all arms context, than swimming/ snorkelling tanks

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes build up our bridging resources and more fast deployment stuff like these. Along with upping the amount of Engineering vehicles, ARV's, AEV's , breaching equipment and fast earth mover and trenching machines.

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

How well any particular piece of equipment performs is entirely secondary to the identification of a piece of equipment to solve a problem. PT76 was 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".

Boats stuck in convoys.
Bailey bridges stuck in convoys.
Open boats crossing under fire with paddles
Having to seize bridges in the first place.

Not that XXX Corps would have lasted as long as it did in Ukraine today. Another long tailback.

D-Day was only the start in the West.
The Scheldt.
Walcheren.
The Arnhem campaign to cross the Dommel, Gender and Tongelreep rivers at Eindhoven, the Waal at Nijmegen and the Rhine at Arnhem.
The Rhine at Remagen.
The Rhine at Wesel.
The Elbe.

In the East it was:
The Volga at Stalingrad.
The Don,
The Donetsk
The Dniepr
The Dniester
The Wisczla
The Oder
The Elbe

All of those contributed to the preference for tin cans over iron boxes. The tin cans were better than canvas Folbots and open DUKWs.

As for the Forbes article. All vehicles are going to take casualties. In war time aggressive commanders are going to exploit their capabilities to the maximum and press until they observe the enemy reacting with effective fire. That fire is deemed effective when casualties are created. The 37th Marine Brigade is the one actually advancing in the Zaporizhia region, despite being lightly armoured with Mastiffs, T80s and AMX-10RCs.

Judging from reports, with the Russians reporting that the Ukrainians mounted a "heavy push"with, quote: "five tanks and five armoured fighting vehicles" against their positions in the village of Rivnopil.

Sections of Russians holding long lengths of trenches. A platoon of Hummvees. A company of Mastiffs with a T80. A company of "tanks and armoured fighting vehicles"

I would say that at this stage in the "game" the skirmishers are skirmishing. The Heavy Brigades have yet to be committed.

 

[Kirkhill]

Well keep in mind a lot of the USSR/Russian also had snorkels etc (albeit most where too long to actually get fresh air in and the exhaust out - leading to Carbon Monoxide poisoning and death in any fording attempt that lasted more than 5 or some minutes.


As far as water crossings go, several years ago when down in Dan Neck, I asked on if the Squadron Chief’s what they did for beach assaults, as they had their stuff in dry bags his answer was “simple, find a different beach that wasn’t occupied” as trying to assault out of the water was suicidal.
Based on all that we have seen in Ukraine, I’d say that also applies outside of Tier 1 entities, and unless you really really need to breach from the water (like D Day) then you are best served by either going a different route - or wiping out anything in your path before you start to cross.

And that is my point entirely...

That is only possible if the ability to cross water is widely distributed and not closely held at Corps level. It is why the US Marines have been looking at more shallow draft vessels which can access more beaches - vessels like the proposed LAW. And vessels like the JHSVs which didn't open up beaches but opened up more small harbours that the big fellows couldn't get into with their deep draughts. It opened up possibilities and forced the enemy to extend themselves to cover all possibilities and try to defend everything.

When every infantry section was mounted in an M113 then every infantry section was an amphibious threat and every water obstacle had to be covered by fire. This reduced the ability of the defenders to concentrate against a single threat. To focus their attention on the Corps Bridging Battalion, or the Squadron's AVLB.

And for every main river that I cited above, there were hundreds of tributaries, canals, creeks, ditches, marshes and sloughs. All channeling heavy forces towards the dry ground.

The M113, the PT76, the BMP-1,2,3, the BMD-1,2,3, the BTR-60,70,80, the MTLB, and yes, even the Bv206s and Swiss Piranhas (aren't piranhas fish?) are all amphibious (if not overloaded with armour and top-hamper - those will sink any boat of any size) .

Even Poland's brand new AFV the Borsuk, the Badger, is amphibious.

Borsuk (Badger) Amphibious Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Poland

Borsuk (Badger) is a modern tracked infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) manufactured by a consortium led by Huta Stalowa Wola (HSW).

www.army-technology.com

Some folks apparently consider mobility to be an issue.

 

[Kirkhill]

Poland signs framework for 1,400 infantry fighting vehicles - Breaking Defense

“The time of the [ex-Soviet BWP-1] IFV, which is still used in the Polish Army, has passed. Now the era of NBPWP Borsuk has come," said Polish defense minister Mariusz Błaszczak.

breakingdefense.com

Borsuk is characterized by high mobility and the ability to overcome terrain obstacles, including water obstacles, and can be operated in various climatic conditions. The maximum speed on paved roads is 65 km/h, and in the water is 8 km/h, while the combat weight of the vehicle in the basic variant is 28 tons. Operation requires a three-man crew of commander, weapons operator and driver, and the vehicle is designed to transport six soldiers to the battlefield.

The design is equipped with an indigenously-produced ZSSW-30 remotely controlled turret system, developed by HSW together with WB Electronics. The main armament of ZSSW-30 is the 30mm Bushmaster Mk.44S automatic chain gun, able to fire with five different types of ammunition, including programmable ammunition. The auxiliary armament, integrated with the turret, is a modified 7.62mm UKM-2000C machine gun coupled with the cannon, as well as double anti-tank guided missiles launchers. Currently, the Spike-LR ATGM launcher has been integrated into the turret, but integration with the Javelin ATGM is also being considered in the future.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes, my dander's up!

Another reason to buy Korean. Add the K21, to the K2, K9 and K239 mission set.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1396576154551652352

Or perhaps the Finns

Patria AMV with BMP-3 Turret for the UAE swimming - Fighting-Vehicles.com

Patria AMV with BMP-3 Turret for the UAE swimming

fighting-vehicles.com

Even the Arabs want their vehicles to be able to swim.

 

[Kirkhill]

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

K21 IFV river crossing | South Korean K21 IFV conducting river crossing exercise. Manufactured by Doosan Defense Systems and Technology, the K21 IFV is not only a well armed IFV... | By Tanks. Being tanks. | Facebook

South Korean K21 IFV conducting river crossing exercise. Manufactured by Doosan Defense Systems and Technology, the K21 IFV is not only a well armed IFV...

www.facebook.com

A bit easier that prepping an "amphibious" Bradley using the DD Tank system of D-Day

And, if you wanted to, a plastic bag, some ty-wraps and a bucket of foam and you too could float a LAV 6.0.

2-Part Polyurethane Expanding Marine Flotation Foam

2-part expanding polyurethane marine flotation foam for permanent flotation, insulation, and soundproofing. Cures to a 94% closed cell marine grade foam.

www.totalboat.com

And no worries about sinking if someone punctures your bladder with a well placed 7.62.

 

[FJAG]

Yes build up our bridging resources and more fast deployment stuff like these. Along with upping the amount of Engineering vehicles, ARV's, AEV's , breaching equipment and fast earth mover and trenching machines.

I think you need to get back to first principles. Is a Canadian brigade going to do a water obstacle assault?

Even the Americans no longer give those resources to every heavy division. The only ones that have it are the Reinforced Heavy Divisions. Water obstacle crossing has become a specific division specialty and not a general skill set for every brigade.

If I was putting extra money into engineering resources I'd aim for mine clearance kit.

As for bridging. I'd stay with Bailey type bridging. That's more for domestic ops or deployed disaster assistance ops.

 

[childs56]

AVBL won’t do every river, it’s why we have have proper engineer bridging assets. I don’t know how many AFVs are going to make it to the other side of a flowing 100 m river. They’re generally quite limited in terms of current and crest.

Those floating bridge assets are not "armored", man power intensive in their construction, use and protection. easily damaged.

Hence the prep that makes them sub optimal.

Yes and no. We have had the luxury of not needing these things. Until we do need these things and we have nothing. A bit of grease, maintenance and drain plugs go a long ways.

civilian bridging equipment ?

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.

Is it armoured?

nope, Never said they had a "armored bridge layer" but they have bridging equipment. You can add armor plate to almost any truck nowadays. I guess you could up armor a texas bed truck.

How long are their bridges ? I’m very curious as I’ve never heard of a civilian armoured bridge layer.

about 120' bridge sections. Longer if you wanted but the logistics gets more complicated. (the engineers have similar assets but not as nice)

And yet most European nations have looked at amphibious capabilities and said “not worth it.”

Which European Countries, Kind of Curious?

 

[OldSolduer]

I think you need to get back to first principles. Is a Canadian brigade going to do a water obstacle assault?

Even the Americans no longer give those resources to every heavy division. The only ones that have it are the Reinforced Heavy Divisions. Water obstacle crossing has become a specific division specialty and not a general skill set for every brigade.

If I was putting extra money into engineering resources I'd aim for mine clearance kit.

As for bridging. I'd stay with Bailey type bridging. That's more for domestic ops or deployed disaster assistance ops.

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.