Landing Vehicle Tracked LVT(A)-4

[W.G.Ewald]

Landing Vehicle Tracked (LVT-2 / LVT-4) (Alligator / Water Buffalo) - Amphibious Personnel Carrier - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Tanks, Vehicles and Artillery

LVT(A)4/LVT(A)5

United States' Landing Vehicle Tracked, LVT (A)(4) - World War II Vehicles, Tanks, and Airplanes

As a result of Tarawa experience, standardized armor kits were provided for the LVTs employed in contested landings, and the gun-armed "amtanks" LVT(A)-1 and LVT(A)-4 were developed to provide fire support. Armed with a 75 mm howitzer, the latter was especially effective in this role as it was capable of destroying Japanese fortifications as it came ashore. However the LVT(A)-4 had an open-topped turret which left the crew vulnerable to artillery and infantry attack, especially to the latter as it lacked any sort of machine gun armament. The lack of machine gun armament was eventually rectified, though the open-topped turret remained. Although usually used during landings only, in the Marianas campaign "amtanks" were employed inland, much like regular tanks.

Landing Vehicle Tracked - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nirranj]

On reading this post, I just remembered the D-Day landing fiction showed in the Saving private Ryan...

And when read through the wikipedia article, this struck me.... This is why Free nations prevail..

"The contract to build the first 200 LVTs was awarded to the Food Machinery Corporation (FMC), a manufacturer of insecticide spray pumps and other farm equipment which built some parts for the Alligators, the initial 200 LVTs were built at FMC's Dunedin, Florida factory, where most of the improvement work had been done as well. Eventually the company became a prominent defense contractor, United Defense (now part of BAE Systems Land and Armaments). During the war LVT production was expanded by FMC and the Navy to four factories, including the initial facility in Dunedin; the new facilities were located in Lakeland, Florida, Riverside, California, and San Jose, California. Roebling Construction got the lucrative construction contract for the Lakeland factory: this was the only profit Roebling got from his invention, as he refused to accept any direct royalties or commissions from the government, seeing it as his personal duty in support of the war effort.

By the way with the advent of composite armour and nano technology is it possible that main battle tanks of future will also perform the Amphibious assault on full scale???

 

[W.G.Ewald]

@nirranj

On reading this post, I just remembered the D-Day landing fiction showed in the Saving private Ryan...

The LVT(A)-4 was used in Saipan and Leyte landings. There were amphibious tanks used at Normandy which were not successful.

BBC NEWS | UK | The tanks that didn't land on D-Day

These so-called Duplex Drive tanks of the 741st Armoured Battalion were launched from landing craft four kilometres from the beach. Fitted with large canvas skirts round the upper portion of the vehicle, the DD tanks were designed to float low in the water - appearing to the enemy as nothing more menacing than a rubber boat.

The entry of this first group into the rough seas proved disastrous. The tanks were intended to operate in seas with a one-foot swell, yet on D-Day the waves rose six feet.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Duplex Drive Tank

The Duplex Drive (DD) tank was designed to be used at the D-Day landings. The Duplex Drive tank was meant to give the Allies mechanised armour on the beaches of Normandy - a weapon that would surprise the Germans defending the beaches there, who would have expected only troops in a beach landing as opposed to tanks. The Duplex Drive tank met with success at Juno Beach but failed to give the Americans the cover they needed at Omaha Beach.

 

[nirranj]

any specific reason why the LVT's where not widely and numerously used in the atlantic theater as was in the Pacific theater... other than that pacific demanded more amphibious landings in the islands...

 

[W.G.Ewald]

any specific reason why the LVT's where not widely and numerously used in the atlantic theater as was in the Pacific theater... other than that pacific demanded more amphibious landings in the islands...

I think you have hit on the reason.

 

[nirranj]

I think you have hit on the reason.

Gotcha... Thank you...

Why did the US cancel the Advanced Amphibious assault vehicle???

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Gotcha... Thank you...

Why did the US cancel the Advanced Amphibious assault vehicle???

Probably the main reason was cost.

The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) (formerly known as the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle) was an amphibious assault vehicle that was being developed for the U.S. Marine Corps....[O]n 6 January 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that he recommends the EFV program be canceled.[5][6] The program, which was projected to cost $15 billion, had already cost $3 billion.[7][8]

The Marines asked for the EFV to be canceled in favor of the Assault Amphibian Vehicle Service Life Extension Program, the Marine Personnel Carrier and the Amphibious Combat Vehicle.[9]

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia