The Assault Amphibian Vehicle (AAV): Its Past, Present and Future

..

LVT-1 s carry reinforcements to Guadalcanal during WWII.

The Assault Amphibian Vehicle (AAV):

Its Past, Present and Future by Captain Wiiiiam P. McLaughlin, USMC In the force structure of U. S. Army and Marine Corps armored/mechanized units, there is one vehicle that remains unique to the United States Marine Corps -the Assault Amphibian Vehicle (AAV). The purpose of this article is to explain its history, present day and future use. The Assault Amphibian Vehicle was invented because of an operational requirement by the Marine Corps in the 1920s and 30s for a vehicle that could transport troops from ship to shore, cross coral reefs, and transition to limited land operations. Early experiments tested the Christie Amphibious Tank in 1924 and the Vickers-Armstrong Light Amphibious Tank in 1932. The interest in an amphibious tank stemmed from the need to have fmt wave firepower in an amphibious landing to bridge the gap between naval gunfire and close air support.' The Corps rejected both vehicles because of poor water speed and buoyancy.

The gap still existed, and interested Marine, Army and Navy officers searched for a replacement. In the winter of 1937-38, a U. S. Navy admiral passed to the commanding general of the Fleet Marine Force an article in Life magazine about an extraordinary new rescue vehicle. It was the "Alligator," designed by Dunedin, Florida engineer Donald Roebling to rescue stranded victims of hurricanes which were so common in the Everglades region?

News of this vehicle was sent to the Marine Corps Equipment Board via the commandant. In the spring of 1938, an official visit and report of this board prompted a recommendation to the Navy's Continuing Board of Landing Craft to procure an experimental model of this craft fur landing exercise testing. This was initially rejected by the Navy due to lack of funds. Mr. Roebling was impressed by the Marines' interest in the military value of his vehicle and continued to develop it. It incorporated riveted, all-aluminum construction, with various V-8 power plants and anew revolutionary track that ppelled the vehicle on land and in water. By August 1940, an improved version, known as the "Alligator," impressed Navy and Marine officials enough to allow allocation of funds to purchase a test vehicle. Army, Navy and Marine officials were so impressed that the Navy negotiated a contract for delivery of 100 all-steel vehicles, to be known as Landing Vehicle, Tracked (LVl"), based on Marine Corps' recommendations?

The Food and Machinery Corporation (FMC), which had assisted Mr. Roebling previously, entered into the fonnal business of producing LVTs at two locations, Lakeland, Florida, and Riverside, California. A Marine training unit was established in May 1941 to provide a cadre to train crewmen and mechanics. After Wing, personnel were sent to newly forming units of the 1st Amphibian Tractor Battalion (AmTrac), part of the 1st Marine Division.

A need was still seen to produce an armored amphibian with a turret and 37-mm gun to pvide firepower to initial waves of an amphibious landing. Designs were begun in the fall of 1941, but were not adopted, nor did production begin, until the war broke out. So, at the beginning of the war, only one version, the LVT(l), a cargo variant armed with 50 and.30 caliber machine guns, was available for deployment overseas. a Strangely enough, the first wartime use of the LVT(1) was not as a troop carrier in the initial wave at Guadalcanal, but as a cargo Carrier, shuttling supplies from ship to shore. Its support was invaluable, due to the rough jungle terrain and lack of wheeled vehicles. The LVT(1) moved and assisted installation of abridge to cross the Tenaru River, towed artillery into place, and evacuated wounded. Though not intended to be an assault vehicle in this operation, it was used to suppress enemy positions with its machine guns so infantry could attack and to cover the withdrawal of wounded! The Marines of the 1st Amtrac Battalion also served as infantry, conducting foot patrols and dismounting machine guns during the critical dark days of battle around Henderson Field when the Marines fought to retain a tenuous foothold. While the LVT(1) was proving its mobility and versatility at Guadalcanal, two armored versions were being produced in the United States. An improved cargo model was developed with a stronger engine and greater cargo capacity, named the LVT(2) (“Water Buffalo”). Its design helped to produce the LVT(A)2 and the LVT(A)l. The LVT(A)2 was simply an armored version of the LVT(2), bearing havier armor plate and periscopes for crew survivability. The LVT(A)l had a chassis similar to the LVT(A)2, but with an M3 light tank turret. The turret was power-operated and the gun gyro-stabilized to increase accuracy while shooting on the move. It was armed with a 37-mm M-6 gun, one coaxially-mounted.30 caliber machine gun, and two ring-mounted.30 caliber machine guns? Unfortunately, these armored versions did not arrive in time to assist in the first combat assault of LVTs at Tarawa. Secret tests at the behest of Marines and their LVT (A)4s, above, re-enact WWll on Vieques Island, off Puerto R i a, in 1954, during the filming of the Hollywood epic ‘Battle Cry.’ At left, an LVT (A)1 rolls dam the ramp of a Landing Ship Tank during the recapture of the Philippines, 1945.

General H. M. Smith (CG, V Amphibious Corps) in May and October of 1943 convinced Marine planners that the only type of craft suitable for crossing the extremely difficult coral reefs ringing islands in the Centrai Pacific was the LVT. No other vehicle could offer protection and mobility in heavy surf with full loads of men and equipment and rapidly transition from water to land Second Marine Division was the unit designated to assault Tarawa. Its supporting 2nd Amphibian Tractor Battalion, commanded by Major Henry Drewes, was in a difficult situation. It had for the landing, 75 LVT(1)s salvaged in New Zealand after sup porting units in the Solomon Islands. These vehicles m unarmored. Drewes located pieces of boiler plate at a local New Zealand Ford Motor Plant. He had these welded to the front and sides of LVT(s) and ensured each vehicle had two S O caliber machine guns and one.30 caliber machine gun? Fifty LVT(2)s (not LVT(A)2s) were shipped from San Diego, Cali-OperatiOnSP fornia, to Samoa, where a company of 2nd Amtrac Battalion prepared these vehicles in a similar manner! So, for the assault, 125 vehicles were ready, though not all were operational for the landing.

The LVT saved the 2nd Marine Division’sat Tarawa. The tide was low, and the vehicle was the only craft able to reach the shore and return to a ship with wounded and to embark follow-on waves. It landed the majority of the assault troops in the first three waves. Those Marines unfortunate enough to ride in flat-bottomed LCVP boats had to walk 500 yards from the reef to the beach through chest-high water. Thirty-three hundred casualties resulted. The need for more LVTs with better armor and an armored fm support variant was one of the valuable lessons learned at TaraWa?

In the spring of 1944, Amphibian Tractor Battalions were removed from Marine divisional control and retained at corps level for better coordination and use in landing operations. In October 1943, the USMC and U. S. Army began raising their first Amtank battalions. The Army called them Amphibian Tank Battalions, while the Marines called their units Armored Amphibian Battalions.

The first U. S. Army Amphibian Tractor Battalions were raised concurrently with the new Amtank battalions. Priority of Amtrac deliveries in the war had initially been given to the Marines. However, U. S. Army units in the Southwest Pacific recognized the vehicle’s utility. In October 1943, LVT(A)4, seen here during a 1955 maneuver. the initial Amy battalions were formed at the U. S. Army Amphibious Training Center, Fort Ord, California. They were formed along lines similar to existing Army mechanized infantry and armor units. Although this vehicle is more closely associated with the U. S. Marines, it is worth noting that the U. S. Army formed more amphibian battalions than the Marines (seven “Amtank” battalions, vice three Armored Amphibian, and 23 Amtrac, vice 11 Amtrac battalions for the Army, receiving a total of 55 percent of all Amtracs delivered to 40 percent delivered to the Marines).’O Their use will be discussed further later in this article.

The next use of LVTs, amphibian and “Amtank” versions, was in the Marshall Islands campaign. Both the At right, an LVT(A)4 provides fire suppart during the Korean War, September 1950. 4th Marine Division and the 7th Army Infantry Division used amphibians and “Amtanks.” The only variation was in the tactical employment of the armored amphibian or “Amtank.” The Army chose to anchor its “Amtanks” on the flanks of the landing beaches, preceding the troop assault waves. This prevented them from being masked by landing vehicles and allowed assault waves to get full use of their machine guns. It looked almost like a large “V.” This created less confusion than the Marines’ employment of the LVT(A)l. The Marine Armored Amphibians preceded the troop-carrying waves and sometimes could not land. They had to remain offshore until troopcarrying LVTs could clear rubble and dug-in infantry. Where Armored Amphibians could get ashore, they were very successful. Marine adoption of a variant of the 7th Infantry Division’s “V” was later highly successful in the capture of several atolls in the Marshalls Chain.”

The biggest lessons in Amtrac employment were made in the Marshalls. They covered the full range, from Armored Amphibian use, to coral reef crossing by the rugged LVT(2) and LVT(A)2, to fire support lessons of the LVT(A)l. A need was seen for a troop carrier with a cargo ramp and better bilge pumps. The LVT(A)l was found to be an effective fire support vehicle, but the direct fire 37-mm gun forced some commanders to use it like a tank. It definitely was not capable of that same mission, being too thinly armored. The decision was made to go to an upgunned version, with a 75mm capable of indirect fire as well as direct.’2 Some Army Amphibian crews adapted LVT(A)2s and LVT(A)ls to carry flamethrowers, 37-mm automatic cannons, and 4.5-inch rocket launchers. The Marines also experimented with these variants in I the Marshalls, but the limited range of the cannons and flamethrowers were not worth the effort to mount them. It was also found that the Rocket-Launching Landing Craft Infantry (LCI) was more effective in amphibi-So, improvements at FMC provided U. S. forces with the LVT(4) and LVT(A)4. The LVT(4) had a ramp which allowed easier loading and unloading of artillery, jeeps, etc., giving added capabilities to the fmt assault waves. The LVT(A)4 was an assault gun/fire support vehicle armed with a 75-mm howitzer which was not gyro-stabilized. This meant that for the rest of the war, in the Marianas, the Pa-ous fire support.’3 laus, Iwo Jima and Okinawa m-paigns, the gun could be used for direct fire upon landing, but as an indirect fire assault gun once ashoE and after M4 Sherman tanks were landed. (The M4s could better withstand Japanese artillery in direct fire than the LVT(A)4). The rest of the war proved the LVT’s worth as a troop and cargo carrier, fire support vehicle, and MEDEVAC carrier in ship-to-shore and coastal range in island campaigns. The LVT was only used as a mechanized troop carrier in conjunction with tanks in a few campaigns, Okinawa being a notable example. The U. S. Army also used the LVT in a similar role ashore in the Philip-Amphibian Tractor Units That Made Major Landings in World War II* U. S. Marine Corps 1st Amphibian Tractor Bn 2nd Amphibian Tractor Bn 3rd Amphibian Tractor Bn 4th Amphibian Tractor Bn 5th Amphibian Tractor Bn 6th Amphibian Tractor Bn 8th Amphibian Tractor Bn 9th Amphibian Tractor Bn 1 st Armored Amphibian Tractor Bn 2nd Armored Amphibian Tractor Bn 3rd Armored Amphibian Tractor Bn U. S. Army 708th Amphibian Tank Bn 534th Amphibian Tractor Bn 715th Amphibian Tractor Bn 773rd Amphibian Tractor Bn ‘From Croizat, V i

J.. COL, USMC (Ret.), ACROSS THE REEF The Amphibious Tracked VehL de at War. Appendix 2. pp. 243-244. Sterling Publishing Company, New York. N. Y.. 1989. ARMOR - March-April1993 pines after landing in Leyte, Mindanao, and Cebu. A highly unique, but not well known, use was in a raid to libemte American POWs and intem-ees in a combined operation, linking up with guerrillas and the 11th Airborne at Los Bafios. (This sounds more like a modem evacuation operation than an event of 45 years ago!)I4 The Australian Army also used LVTs in the Pacific, with its 1st Amphibious Armoured Squadron and 1st Australian Amphibious Tracked Vehicle Platoon employing them at Balik-papan, Borneo, in July 1945.15 The British used limited numbers of Lend/Lease “Buffaloes,” as did the Chinese in the China-Burma-India theater.

Europe also saw limited use of LVTs by the U. S. in Operation TORCH in North Africa, and in Italy, crossing the Po River in joint US./ U. K operation in March-April 1945. The British effectively used LVTs in the Netherlands coastal regions, seizing Walcheren Island and South Beveland Island to gain control of Antwerp. The LVT was also effectively used by the British in crossing the Rhine River in March 1945.16 At war’send, two variants emerged but did not see combat until Korea. An improved cargo carrier emerged in 1949. It had a rear loading ramp for troops instead of open cargo bays, with an improved weapons mount employing a cupola. The LVT(3) was introduced on Okinawa but the LVT(3)C was used in Korea, functioning more as an armored personnel carrier. The other variant added was the LVT(A)5, aversion of the LVT(A)4 with gyro-stabilization. Donald Roebling, the inventor and designer, furnished all of his wartime designs without compensation. President Truman recognized him with a meritorious citation fop his unique contributions to victory. The 1950s brought h e larger LVT-56 series, later used widely in Vitnam. The whide abow is the LVlH-6 version, with 105-mm howitzer. In photo below. 3d Marine Division “AmGrunts’ in an LVT-5 roll ashore in Operation PIRANHA. September 1965. along the Wetnam coast. * LVT(3)Cs and LVT(A)Ss were used in the 1950 Inchon landing and subsequent Han River crossing to re-take Seoul. It proved its combat versatility there, and in the evacuation of Hung-nam Harbor after the 1st Marine Division’s breakout from encirclement at the Chosin Resevoir.’ The rest of the war saw the LVT(A)5 as self-propelled artillery. Some use by riverine patrol units and economy of force patrols, with tanks and dismounted crewmen, Once again proved the amphibians and their crews as versatile fighters.

In 1950, the LVT was fmt used in a war on the Asian land mass. The French used LVT(4)sand LVT(A)4s in their amphibious groups. The French Foreign Legion raised the 1st Legion Cavalry Regiment in 1948, and the 1st Amphibious Assault Group in 1950.’* Some French LVT(4) variants were armed with 75-mm recoilless rifles, 40-mm automatic cannons, and flamethrowers, in addition to its machine guns. These vehicles were used in conjunction with other amphibious vehicles, like the sel”) to provide mobility where boats or normal land vehicles could not go in the coastal and river regions of Indochina. I9 Even after the French lost in Indochina, France retained enough stocks of LVTs to land the 1st Foreign Legion Parachute Regiment and 3rd Marine Commando at Port Faud in the Suez Crisis of 1956?0 The United States entered the Vietnam War with the LVT-5 series, first introduced in 1953. It was a radical departure into larger employment of the LVT. A troop carrier, the LVTP-5; a DUKW (“Duck”) and M29C (“WW-ARMOR - March-April7993 fire support vehicle, the LVTH-6, a command and communications vehicle, the LVTC-1; an air defense vehicle, LVTAA-1; a recovery vehicle, the LVTR-1; and a combat engi-nedminefield breaching vehicle, LVTE-1, were to comprise the LVT-5 series of Amtracs. The basic design of each was to be around 35 tons unloaded and the personnel variant was to carry 30-34 combat-armed Marines. This was nearly double the complement of previous Lvs.2’ The LvTp5 and LVTH6 production models were successful, so several LVTPSS were converted to C2 vehicles and no prototypes were built. A prototype LVTAA-1 was built, but not adopted by the Marine Corps. A limited number of LVT(R)ls and LVT(E)ls were built. The LVTQ1 had a mine plow and mket-propelled line charges, and the LVT(R)l had two winches, each capable of pulling 45,000 pounds, a welding rig, crane and other maintenance equipment with a single line. The LVT(C)S could send and receive on seven channels and monitor four, and it had enough space for chairs and map boards. It was used as a mobile command post ashore, as well as in amphibious landings. The LVT(H)6 mounted a 105-mm artillery piece to provide fire support ashore. The LVT(P)5 series carried out a variety of missions in Vietnam, from amphibious assault landings (relatively unopposed, unlike earlier use), overland resupply, fire support, Cz, and in swampy riverine and coastal areas. Though an aging vehicle, it was usually operationally at 80 percent availability due to How the LVT(P)7 Maneuvers In Water STEERING AND REVERSING CONTROLLED BY superior sustainment by maintenance and support units. LVT operations were also known for the use of Amtrac crewmen as infantry, in addition to regular duties, and from this came the nickname “AmGmnts.” The LVT(H)6 also won praise from Marine infantry for its endurance and versatility in support of combat opera-tionsF2 A severe drawback of the LVT(P)5 that was noted (and was common with M113 APCs of the era), was the highly flammable gas tanks in the “belly” of the vehicle, vulnerable to mines. Infantry preferred to ride on I I. r_ Marines maneuver horn the sea as the then-new LVTP7 is tested. side by side, with its predecessor. the LVTP5A1. top of the vehicle with sandbags piled high to protect them. This and other problems, such as low water speed and maneuverability, prompted the development of anew series of LVTs. The LVT(P)7 series emerged around 1972. It had a recovery variant LVT(R)7 and a C2 variant, the LVT(C)7. It was more maneuverable and faster in the water, using a water-jet propulsion system in water and tracks for movement on land (Earlier LVTs used their tracks for water and land propulsion). It returned to a rear-opening cargo ramp, like the LVT4, vice front-opening on the LVT(P)S. An engineer variant was developed but unfortunately not adopted. Unlike the earlier LVT(H)6, which was heavily armored, the LVT(P)7 series was aluminum, like the M113 APC?3 This gave more buoyancy and easier maintenance, given an original operational requirement of 80 percent water operations and 20 percent land operations. Despite the introduction of “vertical envelopment” techniques of landing one force by helicopter and another across the beach by LVT, the LVT(P)7 is a durable, all-weather vehicle. It is the only truly amphibious vehicle in the world, capable of surviving 10-feet plunging surf in the surf zone and underway launch by amphibious ships at sea (including nighttime operations).

However, around the late 19709, the U. S. realized it needed a rapid deployment force capable of opemting in a mechanized desert environment in the Middle East. The Marines were the best force, with a task-organized package, to be inserted into such an environment. The only APC available was the LVT(P)7. It was introduced as a personnel carrier at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California, to cany infantry in combined livefire exercises with tanks, artillery and air. An operational commitment also rose to produce alight armored vehicle to perform “picket“ and reconnaissance duties on a rapidly moving modem battlefield This led to the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV)25 series.

The experiments in this area and in NATO exercises showed Marines that more improvements were needed to make to the LVT(P)7 more survivable. A search began to produce the LVT(P)7A1 model.

Before designs could be implemented, let us discuss the LVT(P)7 in combat. These vehicles again proved their versatility. Example missions included: landing surface assault elements of an Marine Amphibious units: driving through small antipersonnel bomblets (which were ineffective against buttoned-up vehicle personnel) to allow pathways for engineers and EOD to clear routes of communication; providing logistical resupply and fast reaction reinforcement of combat outposts and isolated strongpoints (often in conjunction with Marine tanks): providing attack by fm capabilities against hostile forces with its S O caliber machine gun: humanitarian evacuation of civilians in a mountain snowstorm: and rines. Though not armored, the vehicle did provide some protection against small arms fire; crews covered their vehicles with sandbags and Wire mesh to protect against rockets and fragmentation.% Marine Amtrac and infantry leaders learned when to employ the vehicle as personnel carriers, not fighting vehicles! The Italian San Marcos Naval Infantry Battalion also used their LVT(P)7s in similar roles as members of the Multi-National Force in Beirut. 25 In Grenada, the LVT(P)7 was again used as a personnel carrier to rapidly move as par& of a mechanized combined arms task force to seize inland objectives, such as in the relief of SEALS at Governor General Scoon’s House,= and the seizure of St. George, Fort Frederick, and Richmond Hill Prison. LVTs provided an envelopment by landing a force over the beach into the rear of the enemy. MEDEVAC of wounded U. S. Ma-Fortunately, for the LVTs and the M60Als, as well as the light Army airborne forces, there were no tanks or antitank capabilities on the island. (The platoon from “A” Company, 2nd Assault Amphibian Battalion did capture a BRDM-2, which is now in the Marine Air Ground Museum in Quantico, irginia.)”

The Argentinians, in their 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands, used LVT(P)7s to land their first wave of Naval Infantry. Unfortunately. they did not land tanks or dismount the infantry early enough to clear routes, and lost one vehicle to antitank fire by defending British Royal Marines?* The U. S. Marines knew they could not produce a completely new vehicle until the late 1990s or the year 2001. So they began what was called the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). At about this time, the Marine Corps decided to designate these vehicles as “Assault Amphibian Vehicle” ur AAVs. This mind-set, plus new tactics, made designers think of ways to enhance the vehicle’s capabilities as a pemnnel’carrier as well as an amphibious vehicle.

The program that laid the groundwork for this was SLEP. This involved the delivery of some completely new vehicles, but concentrated mainly on vehicle rebuild An electronically-powered weapons station with external smoke grenade launchers was added, instead of the hydraulic-powered station of old. Anew, m m powerful V-8 tmbcharged Cummins diesel engine replaced the earlier Detroit Diesel. A smoke generation system was incorporated. Nonintegral fuel tanks replaced the LVT(P)7’s integral one. Suspension was improved, with a capability to provide better trim by engaging tracks while powered in the water by the water jet propulsion system. Also added was the capability to provide secure voice communications. A state-of-the-art instrument panel provides easier control and better warning systems than the old ehicle.2 With all these product improvements, what does it mean for the future of the AAV? The PIP is to keep the AAVWA1 series around until 199992004. All examples of the LVT(P)7 IB ceived upgmdes and became the AAWA1 series. Mast ndable was the development of state-of-the-art communications gear in the AAVC7Al. This vehicle began to be fielded in the operational forces around 1984. It has been deployed in extreme climates, including the snows of Korea, Norway, and Alaska, the jungles of the Philippines to South America, the deserts of North Africa, the open, rolling ground of Turkey, and the European plains in Italy, France, Northern Gemany, and Denmark.

In 1986, fielding of an Upgunned Weapons Station (UGWS), employing the MK19 40-mm Auto Grenade Launcher and the M2 HB S O caliber machine gun, replaced the M85 S O caliber machine gun, but still retained electric drive and smoke grenade launchers.

In 1987, a noteworthy event was the fielding of the P-900 applique armor kit. "lis kit provides a two-layer protection on the exterior of the vehicle hull, acting like "chain mail" to divert incoming rounds. Another applique armor kit being fielded is Enhanced Applique Armor Kit (EAAK). This will add 4,200 pounds to the vehicle but provides side protection up to 14.-5-mm AP rounds at 300 meters and overhead armor protection from 155-mm airbursts 30 meters over the vehi-All these improvements (UGWS, P-900, and EAAK) prompted funding for a Product Improvement Program (PIP) to carry the AAWAl series forward to the years 1999-2004, when a replacement can be fielded. In addition to ensuring that UGWS and applique mor is fielded, PIP also will fund a Bow Plane Kit to enhance water operation with the added armor, a Magnetic Heading System, Automatic Fire Sensing and Suppression System, impved transmission, and Advanced Propulsion System?l In addition to these improvements, the AAV has also managed to enhance mobility on the modem combined arms team, despite no fielding of an engineer variant since the Marine Corps' bought and fielded a Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC) which could be towed by AAVs or tanks. AAVs are better suited for this since they can carry an engineer Another system being produced to provide battlefield mobility via the AAV, is the Catapult Launched Fuel Air Explosive (CAW&) surf zone mine clearing system. This incorporates a launcher with 21 fuel-air explosive rounds, and a fire control system installed in the troop compartment of an AAVWA1. This system would fire 234-pound propylene oxide fuel-air explosive rounds onto minefields, thereby destroying surfam-laid mines or detonating mine fuses through overpressure. CAWAE can break mines in the surf zone while firing from afloat (while moving up to 6.2 mph) or ashore (up to 15 mph); it can create a lane up to 20 meters by 300 meters in 90 seconds or less, and it can fire either single rounds or volleys of up to 21 rounds?* This system will be fielded with 12 units divided among the three AAV battalions by fEcal year 1995.

To complement MICLIC and CATFAE, mine plows adaptable to the AAVF7A1 series are being purchased in conjunction with another buy to acquire mine plows for MlAls.

With all these product improvements, what does it mean for the future of the AAV? The PIP is to keep the AAVP7Al series around until 1999-2004. The problem of replacing LVTQ1. Since 1983-84, the Squad. the AAV is the change in doctrine and tactics. Marine and Navy planners zon (0") landings, using high speed water vehicles like the Light Air Cushioned Landing Craft (LCAC). Many planners think that the LCAC would override the need for an Advanced Assault Amphibian Vehicle (AAAV). However, the AAAV would satisfy many mission area needs by providing mobility, firepower and armor protection to embarked personnel during the ship-to-shore portion of an amphibious assault, as well as in subsequent operations ash0re.3 This would mean a radical departure from the present AAV. It would mean a high-speed water vehicle capable of being launched OTH, out of range of enemy weapons systems, and bans-itioning to personnel carrier on land. Designers are working on such a prototype, planned to be smaller than the present AAV. It would have a main gun similar to the LAV or IWM3 Bradley with mor providing protection up to 14.5-mm machine gun fire at 300 meters. It would be capable of transition from high water speed travel to tracked vehicle operations on land. It would provide forcible entry (or assault) onto critical beaches. This would clear the way for LCAC and conventional landing craft to land LAVs, to push out forward as a security force for the beachhead, and for the MlAls to marry up with AAVs and infantry ashore to create mechanized combined m s task forces if the combat environment dictates it. Testing continues on such a vehicle. Recently, AAI Corporation and General Dynamics, in conjunction with the Marine Corps, produced a High Water Speed Technology Demonstrator (HWSTD) of the AAAV. It broke the water speed record for a tracked amphibious vehicle set by the "Alliga-predict an in-in Over The HOri-tor- in 1940, or 10 mph, by tripling itM This is the fitst step taken in developing the AAAV.

In summary, we have seen a unique tracked vehicle that is t l y amphibious, providing versatile capabilities afloat and ashm. The history, present use, and future of the Assault Amphibian Vehicle shows us that it still meets the operational needs of our force structure today and in years to come.

Postscript: “Shlps of the Desert” When this article was originally written, I was a student at the Armor Officer Advanced Course in July 1990. Since the first draft of this article, I have had the privilege of observing the AAWA1 vehicle in combat in Operation DESERT STORM, while serving as the commanding officer of Company D, 2d Assault Amphibian Battalion, 2d Marine Division. Though this vehicle was primarily designed for amphibious assault from “shipto-shore,” it performed extremely well as a “Ship of the Desert.” It provided mobility for engineer and infantry units for the ground assault and subsequent liberation of Kuwait City.

A unique application of this vehicle was the fielding of the Mark 154 Modification “0” Linear Mine Clearance Kit. This is an engineer asset that is internally mounted in the vehicle. It consists of a rocket and linear demolition charge system, similar to the MK155 MICLIC towed variant. A hydraulic system raises the rocket before firing. Once fired, the line charge deploys on the ground, creating a breach lane through the obstacle. Unfortunately, a mineplow has not been fielded for the AAV (one is cmntly being developed and tested). In the Kuwaiti Theater of Operations, Marine forces used M6OA1 and MlAl tanks to proof the breach lane. The AAVWAl was also embarked with the 4th and 5th Marine Expeditionary Brigades (MEBs). These units In the Gulf War This AAVP7A1 with Mark 154 mine-clearing system, similar to the MICLIC, itself hit a mine in the breaching of the Iraqi defenses. Three abreast on an Amy-operated LCM, the D Co. vehides begin the trip home from Kuwait, underway from R’as AI Mishab to AI Jubail. provided the amphibious “feint” for Central Command by constantly practicing amphibious landings prior to the ground war. The 5th MEB also conducted an administrative landing at R’as Al Mishab, Saudi Arabia, to re-.infonx the I Marine Expeditionary Force after the ground assault started. For a vehicle that initially was designed for 80 percent water use and 20 percent land use, in my opinion, it held up remarkably well under desert conditions. These vehicles were a necessary mobility asset to equip our conventional line infantry. These vehicles are thin-skinned and, therefore, it was necessary to complement it in the mechanized combined arms task force with tanks, combined antiarmor teams (scouts mounted in HMMWVs with additional mounted TOW sections), and light armored infantry units (LAV equipped).

The AAWAl still remains in the Fleet Marine Force, executing traditional missions. In a recent review of Jane’s AFV Recognition Handbook, Second Edition, by Christopher F. Foss (1992), I noticed that the Landing Vehicle Tracked or the Assault Amphibian Vehicle (modem USMC designation) lives on in service in -many variants and models in different countries. The older L W 5 series remains in service in Chile, Philippines, and Taiwan. The LVTP7 remains in service in Argentina, Brazil, Italy, South Korea, Philippines, Spain, and Thailand. The AAVP7A1 is currently in use or being bought by the USA, Brazil, and Venezuela.

The Assault Amphibian Vehicle remains in use in the Fleet Marine Force as we speak. In December 1992, as the world watched the United States land in Somalia for "Operation RESTORE HOPE," AAVs from the Battalion Landing Team of the Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) WU(S0C)l landed in Mogadishu.

The U. S. Marine Corps and U. S. Navy, in anticipation of future joint operations in the U. S. Armed Forces, will have to maintain the capability of Over The Horizon amphibious operations as the spearhead of U. S. forces into the littoral areas of various regions. This is the genesis of an evolving doctrine hown as 'Maneuver from the Sea."

The U. S. Marine Corps continues to develop an Advanced Assault Amphibian Vehicle (AAAV). AAI Corporation has produced a High Water Speed Technology Demonstrator (HWSTD), and its competition, the Food and Machinery Corporation (FMC), of San Jose, California, has also produced a high water speed test vehicle.

Only the future will show if anew variant will emerge. The successful combination of high water speed mobility and ground mobility is a technological challenge. If this feat can be accomplished, I know it would warm the heart of many an old "amtrac" soldier or Marine that fondly remembers his old reliable, versatile vehicle.