Landing Craft

[lcm1]

I have recently seen comments on more recent Landing craft and noticed a LCM8. googled it and saw that it was obviously a more elaborate descendant of the American Mark 3.That put in some stalwart duties through the mid 40s My apologies that this is not an actual new Thread but wished to share my find. lcm1

[Half Pint John]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCM-8



Wit a draft of 5'3"loaded some are going to be getting very damp.

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by Half Pint John

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCM-8



Wit a draft of 5'3"loaded some are going to be getting very damp.

Hi HP, The stern and Cox'ns cabin is similar to the LCM 3, but of course updated. The draft on the British Mark 1 that I was on had sides that were waist level and when at sea it was very damp. The ones that were lost returning to the UK in rough weather were suspected to have been swamped by large waves, and with the engine room below the deck and perhaps an open hatch it was 'Goodbye Mister Chips'. lcm1 ( Ken )

[Merkava188]

Are any of these still in service? I wonder if it's possible to develop an air cushioned utility craft?

[Moulin]

Originally Posted by Merkava188

Are any of these still in service? I wonder if it's possible to develop an air cushioned utility craft?

do you mean like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Air_Cushion

[Merkava188]

Something like that but, smaller and would also be used as a close fire support platform.

[MarkV]

Royal Marines
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...overcraft.html

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by MarkV

Royal Marines
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...overcraft.html

Wow! Now that is really something Mark, Ken.

[Moulin]

Originally Posted by MarkV

Royal Marines
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...overcraft.html

the skirt is not armored...?
seems like it would have to be used in a friendly/secured beach area,...the skirt can be punctured easily....?
also as mentioned before, bad maneuverability, etc...especially in built up areas
..where as the AAVs are fast on land...highly mobile APCs after landing....
AAV7 44 mph land ..what's the ACV land speed?

so is it worth it? sure, to land/transport heavy loads much faster whereas the AAVs are mainly troop carriers

...is the armor even worth it if the skirt is vulnerable? considering you are using a secured beach?
...also, the fans are highly vulnerable to small arms?..also highly visible, and ''fragile''--more so than a chopper's rotors
thanks all replies

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by Moulin

the skirt is not armored...?
seems like it would have to be used in a friendly/secured beach area,...the skirt can be punctured easily....?
also as mentioned before, bad maneuverability, etc...especially in built up areas
..where as the AAVs are fast on land...highly mobile APCs after landing....
AAV7 44 mph land ..what's the ACV land speed?

so is it worth it? sure, to land/transport heavy loads much faster whereas the AAVs are mainly troop carriers

...is the armor even worth it if the skirt is vulnerable? considering you are using a secured beach?
...also, the fans are highly vulnerable to small arms?..also highly visible, and ''fragile''--more so than a chopper's rotors
thanks all replies

I must say I have difficulty in understanding the RM taking on such a vehicle if they must have known of such problems, for they are now a totally Commando outfit and as such do not bet on a quiet life. lcm1

[Moulin]

Originally Posted by lcm1

I must say I have difficulty in understanding the RM taking on such a vehicle if they must have known of such problems, for they are now a totally Commando outfit and as such do not bet on a quiet life. lcm1

I would think the main purpose is to bring in AFVs, then supplies
good call on noise..they are loud, yes?

[MarkV]

Originally Posted by Moulin

I would think the main purpose is to bring in AFVs, then supplies
good call on noise..they are loud, yes?

No read the article. The RM version caries 12 men - an assault craft.

[Half Pint John]

Very loud!

[T. A. Gardner]

While the LCAC's (air cushion) are faster than the LCM's, the LCM's cream them on load capacity and in the long run can deliver far more equipment and material to a beachhead than air cushion craft can.

[TacCovert4]

Whenever possible you want to land unopposed. The EFV has role in an amphibious assault because beach defenses are more often than not relegated to MGs, the occasional ATGM, and infantry, maybe with mines or IEDs if there's time and the landing sites are canalized enough.

The issue with using Ospreys is that the entire complement of Ospreys can only land maybe a company at a time. And the Ospreys don't bring in organic heavy weapons in those drops. Amphibious armored vehicles bring in heavy weapons to the beach, along with armor that's proof against the most common threats (Machine Guns). Ospreys are also far more sensitive to weather conditions than Amtracks. Amtracks would actually prefer to go ashore in heavy fog during a driving rain.

Ideally what you want is to hit a beach with only minimal defenses with a simultaneous battalion landing on Amtracks and a Vertical Envelopment by a company in Ospreys just behind the beach, pinning the defenders against their defenses and then rolling them up. Ideal situations are rare if they ever occur. Amtracks are more capable of dealing with less than ideal conditions than any rotary wing asset. 3 or 4 guys with SA7s can ruin the Osprey's day. 3 or 4 guys with ATGMs may or may not drop a couple of Amtracks before they hit the beach.

As for what distance you're 'safe' from threats to the ships? I'd say that the reasonable launch distance is one where the ships escorting destroyers and frigates have time to engage incoming threats like suicide boats and missiles. Sure you could theoretically engage ships from shore with missiles that have over 100nm of range....but at 50nm out the escorts would have time to spot, address, and counter the incoming threats.

Until you say that all amphibious operations are moot, and all opposed operations from ship to shore will be either RHIBs or Vertical, you need Amtracks of one form or another. And going with the other option means that an enemy can reasonably defend his shoreline with SAMs, MANPADs, and a few Machine Guns. By adding the additional threat, the enemy is required to respond with more defensive troops, more defensive preparations, and more assets like ATGMs, Artillery, etc. This means that any opposing country with a coastline must take more extensive and expensive measures to defend it, meaning that they have to either defend only a few areas leaving gaps, or fatally reduce their defenses elsewhere.

I doubt the Iraqis would have fielded such a large force to oppose Marines in GW1 if they were only a heliborne force.