Amphibious Next-Gen vehicle for US Marine Corps

Рет қаралды 460,377

4 жыл бұрын

This video was sponsored by World of Warships! If you’re a new player, register to receive 700 doubloons, 1,000,000 Credits, two premium ships, one port slot, and 7 days of premium time when you use code READY4BATTLE2020 and click here → bit.ly/2WkpQD2
Here’s something fascinating that has been going on behind the scenes at the Marine Corps for the past 25 years that probably none of us know about. As of last year, they are finally replacing their old Amphibious Assault Vehicle with a next-generation Amphibious Combat Vehicle with some awesome upgraded capabilities. If you ask me it looks like they basically water proofed the Army’s Stryker and called it a day.
If you think beach landings are obsolete, but the Marines certainly don’t. Future amphibious landings remain a strategic possibility in places like the South China Sea where near peers adversaries like China have been flexing their muscles. Sure, we haven’t landed on a contested beach in a half-century, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen again.
Three different companies have created a version of the Corps’ next amphibious vehicle, and all of them are competing for the multi-billion dollar contract. And while General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems were originally the running, BAE Systems won the bid just last year to produce 30 of the new ACVs for testing and evaluation.
The new ACV will outmatch the old AAV in all the places that matter for a next-generation future conflict. The new vehicle will have a 30mm autocannon mounted on top, which is leagues more powerful than the Mark 19 system. It will carry less troops and move slower in the water which, while ostensibly a disadvantage, is not necessarily a bad thing due to recent changes in Marine Corps doctrine.
Former Undersecretary of the Navy Robert Work believed one of the two would happen in any future amphibious conflict: Either Marines would land unopposed like in Grenada, or they would have to bomb the living heck out of the beach first. Basically, the idea of fighting on a contested beach would make no sense in a future conflict, and the Navy’s thinking here is that you don’t need a fast troop transport if you land uncontested - something that F-35s and cruise missiles launched from ships can help achieve with regards to beach defenses.
Written & Edited by: Chris Cappy
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
Join The Discord Channel: / discord
Inquries: Capelluto@taskandpurpose.com
Task & Purpose Gaming Channel: / @taskpurposegaming9928
Military Conspiracies Channel: / @taskpurpose1stsquad
Want more fun military content and news? Follow Task & Purpose!
Facebook: / taskandpurpose
Instagram: / taskandpurpose
Twitter: / taskandpurpose
taskandpurpose.com/

Пікірлер: 1 100

@Taskandpurpose 4 жыл бұрын

@geneva214 4 жыл бұрын

Pls make a video about the Italian ARX200 🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹

@johnd2058 4 жыл бұрын

2:45 -- Nice touch, can I get a _touché_ from the Corps? A _reeeeeeeeeeeeeee_ will suffice.

@anonymouscommenter2278 4 жыл бұрын

2:32 Here is the link to the RAND report: www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2928.html

@area609joe2 4 жыл бұрын

I’ll join cause it ain’t raid shadow legends!

@lalruatdikavarte7943 4 жыл бұрын

Nice video keep up the good videos.

@lilpold9192 4 жыл бұрын

Anti ship missile: *flies low to the sea level because the curvature of the earth makes it invisible to radar* Flatearthers: Im gonna pretend I didn’t see that

@parallel-knight 4 жыл бұрын

I’m gonna pretend I didn’t sea that

@johnd2058 4 жыл бұрын

*Navy* : "There's no way we can secure a littoral battlespace well enough to even think about attempting a contested amphibious landing. Hey, Marine Corps, the job description you've had since FDR just doesn't exist anymore." *USMC* : "I'm gonna pretend I still see it."

@olisk-jy9rz 4 жыл бұрын

But it doesn't fly low due to the curvature? It flies low because radards struggle more picking objects low on the ground and the waves also helps

@gnoomman 4 жыл бұрын

@@olisk-jy9rz True, but it also flies low so it's behind the horizon as long as possible. When a subsonic missiles flies over the horizon a radar can pick it up a ship then has a bout 1,5 minutes to react to the incoming threat.

@lilpold9192 4 жыл бұрын

olisk nah fam we talking about a missile hiding behind the horizon. Once a missile is over the horizon it can be easily detected, like explained in the video

@mannibus1571 4 жыл бұрын

the ships the british lost to the falklands were down to Argentinian Exocet air lauched missiles. not land based.

@leonidandreev1171 4 жыл бұрын

HMS Glamorgan was hit by an Argentinian Exocet missile fired from an improvised shore-based launcher.

@MrNigzy23 4 жыл бұрын

@@leonidandreev1171 HMS Glamorgan wasn't lost though.

@leonidandreev1171 4 жыл бұрын

@@MrNigzy23 That is true. And as for the actual landing ships, the Argentinians sunk one and heavily damaged another, but those were hit by attack planes with unguided missiles and bombs, I believe (?).

@stuartthornton3027 4 жыл бұрын

Argentina had only 5 Exocets at their disposal during the Falklands war, and all were of the air launched flavour. Two ships were lost to aircraft launched Exocet. The Atlantic Conveyor, a container ship carrying much-needed hardware including all but one of the task forces Chinooks. The first however was HMS Sheffield, a type 42 destroyer. All other losses were bombs only, and would have been higher if not for the fact that the Argentine aircraft flew so low that many bombs didn't arm, several of these actually passed right through ships. Great video 👍

@jantschierschky3461 4 жыл бұрын

@@leonidandreev1171 both cases air dropped excocet

@jarink1 4 жыл бұрын

The last USMC opposed beach landing was in 1992 when they were met by hordes of reporters just beyond the surf line in Mogadishu.

@kolinmartz Жыл бұрын

@zambooki100not to be confused with every single time the marines have based off responsibility to the army. Just like leaving Vietnam early.

@danielefabbro822 Жыл бұрын

Surf in Mogadishu? Bro those waters are full of sharks.

@jeffshriber6120 4 ай бұрын

Can't imagine being in an Aav for 100 miles on water at 8 mph. Over the horizon only needs to be 15 miles to avoid visibility. Radar would still see you and missiles can still get there but no one can see you coming past 15 miles, and frankly lcac delivery is better.

@nunyabznss5866 4 жыл бұрын

If it's as versatile as the Stryker then it's probably a home run.

@ironteacup2569 4 жыл бұрын

My main issue is still the getting stuck in sand issue. Idk but my experience has made me question wheels on soft ground

@swordsman1137 4 жыл бұрын

@@ironteacup2569 make me wonder, what a country that have many island will choose, a tracked or wheeled? They must deal with that problem so much, i think they knew the best.

@darrickwest6018 4 жыл бұрын

Looks like an LAV on roids

@nunyabznss5866 4 жыл бұрын

@@ironteacup2569Couldn't hurt to keep some AAVs just in case.

@altoclan21 4 жыл бұрын

@@swordsman1137 here in indonesia, for landing to shore, they use tracked (bmp and aav)

@aaronnoce1143 3 жыл бұрын

RIP to the Marines lost in the recent AAV training, hopefully the accident will get this fielded quicker to replace the outdated and dangerous current AAV.

@malnutritionboy 3 жыл бұрын

What happened

@j01150126 3 жыл бұрын

Aaron, what do you think about the CMC bringing back amphibious assaults?

@j01150126 3 жыл бұрын

Would you know if these vehicles have any anti DEW capabilities?

@johnwilliamsscuba6487 3 жыл бұрын

I heard the AAV that sank was deadlined is that correct?

@Awesomelord101 3 жыл бұрын

@@johnwilliamsscuba6487 it was down to crew negligence and no leadership in the water. Everyone was posted. the Crew chief was a Staff sergeant..... the driver despite all measures he took. did a few heroic things.... and yeah it was deadlined..... so many things went wrong....... they put 8 gallons of Oil in the engine........ and proceeded to splash.... they waved the November flag for 45 minutes before it went down..... nobody came to their rescue. several other vehicles passed this one as it was loosing power.... not stopping or thinking twice

@NewbHunter7235 4 жыл бұрын

Still think it should be faster in water. When it's in the water is at its most vulnerable so getting out of the water should be top priority. And this thing might also need to cross rivers and being able to cross a river quickly without moving to fast downstream would be a big tactical advantage. That's why most of Russia's vehicles are amphibious

@stephenwilson9497 4 жыл бұрын

I appreciate your sense of humor. Thanks for making it fun.

@jamesdouglas6977 4 жыл бұрын

As a former AAV crewmen I once got 25 grunts in the back of my AAV. That said I’m pretty sure you can get more then 13 fully loaded grunts in the back of this new vehicle.

@squirreltakular9049 3 жыл бұрын

As one of those grunts, why did you hate us?

@jamesdouglas6977 3 жыл бұрын

@@squirreltakular9049 I didn’t hate grunts. As a Lance coolie I didn’t have much say in things for that up. But once that op got canceled the squad leader bought me a case of beer.

@shiraziwineco.6683 2 жыл бұрын

I got a question, I’m going in as an AAV Crewman 1833, do they carry rifles in the backs while inside or no?

@jamesdouglas6977 2 жыл бұрын

@@shiraziwineco.6683 Yes the grunts will have their rifles with them.

@JacatackLP 4 жыл бұрын

Sound like the doctrine is almost switching to fill the old role of Paratroopers. I do wonder if it might be overly optimistic to think air and missile power will be able to completely break enemy defenses apart. Even with those 30 mils i cant help but feel even a few properly concieled atgms could ruin the days of a lot of marines. Still though great vid as always, and lets hope these never have to be used regardless!

@MS-gr2nv 4 жыл бұрын

RPG s will wreck your day...ugh

@POSIDN-cv1qq 4 жыл бұрын

As they once said , but they have smoke generators....

@jantschierschky3461 4 жыл бұрын

@@POSIDN-cv1qq oceans shores tend to be windy, direction unpredictable.

@DracoAvian 4 жыл бұрын

Absolutely fair, but the 30mm will have a definite advantage over .50s and Mk19s. Even if you were fighting a contested landing, I'd rather have the reach and stopping power over pure over-the-water speed. ATGMs can be tricky to spot (Trying finding Javelin teams hiding in the hills at NTC. It's fucking tough.), but with the 30mm you have a chance to engage them right back. The Mk19 has such a limited range I would think it would be useless until you're actually on the beach. As long as the Super AV can engage targets while floating I don't see an actual disadvantage. Like ole 1SG used to say, "Firing without maneuvering is a waste of ammo and maneuvering without firing is suicide." But I think you're right. I think the most casualty producing weapon of any contested beach landing is gonna be ATGMs. I'd be interested in finding out how the Navy and Marine Corps will go about avoiding contested landings. I assume there's a lot of reconnaissance involved.

@jarink1 4 жыл бұрын

Aren't deep raids and disruption of enemy rear areas basically SEAL or Army Ranger missions? Sounds like the Marines are giving up one of the only missions that have warranted keeping them separate from the rest of the Navy or (dare I say it) the Army.

@ssgtdolan 4 жыл бұрын

"We don't want to spend that much." "I know, just throw a impeller on a striker and call it amphibious." "Done."

@lovemym16 4 жыл бұрын

Everytime the military anticipates not doing something in the next war that is exactly what they end up doing

@vipe650r 3 жыл бұрын

Every time we enter a war we start it fighting the last one and are ready to fight the current one shortly after it’s finished. Still, as far as who I’d prefer to have guessing, it’d be those who’ve weathered the battles so far, hopefully with open ears to those gathering intel.

@IonorReasSpamGenerator 3 жыл бұрын

Well, the enemy does not want to fight in scenarios your army is built around and good at fighting in, but in those you are weak, so in order to be good at everything reasonably well you would be ending with plenty of F-35 like hi-tech multirole systems that are unnecessary in most of the scenarios while inferior to dedicated machines of opposition (like Su-57 when finished) even if such opposition like Russia isn't as technologically advanced simply because dedicated machines did not need to do compromises as multirole ones. The fact is that with each generation of weapons being more expensive, there is a lower will to purchase a large number of dedicated machines that are best at their job nor replace everything with hi-tech multirole ones that are good enough at everything as both solutions becoming unbearing expensive (though EU seems to go in a way of hi-tech multirole jets for the future, they did not plan to build numbers to challenge anyone of their size), this is why you have a hi-low mix of few hi-tech toys designed against few hi-tech toys of the opposition complemented by the majority of affordable workhorses that are good enough in most scenarios like is the new amphibious wheeled transporter for Marines. Remember, Marines still have hi-tech transports like V-22 Osprey capable fly at high altitudes over the reach of man-portable missiles and also the ability to deploy SEALs on inflatable boats silently from submarines lurking in littoral waters, so Marines still keep hi-tech alternative for tougher nuts to crack while depending with its transports by the majority on more affordable workhorses which Marines actually can afford in necessary quantities...

@kathrynck 3 жыл бұрын

If the military changes 100 things to prepare for future war... And 20 of those changes turn out to be mistakes. You'll hear about those 20 mistakes 125234523562 times in books, articles, video, etc. And the 80 things they get right will just be looked back upon as common sense.

@rackem6724 3 жыл бұрын

I agree with the other comments here. Regardless of the conflict, this vehicle will be operating 99% of the time as a LAV not a landing craft. It should be built like as a LAV with amphibious capability not the other way around.

@tyrranicalt-rad6164 4 жыл бұрын

Nah man ...what we need are Sea-doos with rockets on them !!!

@roryross3878 4 жыл бұрын

Are they ill-tempered?!!!

@e2rqey 4 жыл бұрын

Gotta throw some picatinny rails on there too. Make it "Modular" the DoD will love it.

@devinhallsworth5531 3 жыл бұрын

Go Joe!

@devilbub8709 4 жыл бұрын

The last time I remember the marines said they "boomed" a beach and they thought they just could roll up was Iwo Jima

@cavscout678 2 жыл бұрын

Same thing happened on D-day

@obsidianstatue 4 жыл бұрын

interesting to see a divergence of doctrine between the Chinese marines and US marines on beach landings. The Chinese Type-05 amphibious fighting vehicle can travel at 25 km/h on water and can be armed with either 30mm or 105 rifled guns, it's designed specifically for contested beach landings. This line of thought taken by the US marines basically rules out direct confrontation between China and the US over taiwan.

@shadowywarrior 4 жыл бұрын

@Joseph S maybe its this concept that allowed the Iranian (a war game where a simulated Iranian forces lead by an ex-Marine commander) basically kicked the shit out of United States forces. He just wouldn't let them land.

@corey8420 4 жыл бұрын

@@shadowywarrior will "war game" for one, it's kinda like Iran swarming their fake US aircraft carrier with 20' long boats and sinking it. Alot of things work in theory, but once you get punched in the nose things change.

@neofilomata3254 3 жыл бұрын

Guys yo got to remember, the change of doctrince is not only marine wide but armed forces wide. The united states can not actually Invade mainland China and they know that. A possible war between them will be fought on the sea and the air. The plan will go along the lines of stablishing a fortress in Taiwan, blockaiding the chinese with the navy and bombing the them through CVN´s and AF bases in Taiwan. Marines will only be utilized to land on the south china sea islands and will be bombed in advance of the marine invasion.

@obsidianstatue 3 жыл бұрын

@@neofilomata3254 hypothetical war between China and the US won't happen tomorrow, or even within this decade. by next decade China will have several CATOBAR carriers launching stealth carrier based fighters and drones, plus the recently released plans to build the next gen Assault Carriers the Type-076. This can potentially give China by 2030 around 3 CATOBAR carriers plus as much as 4 smaller CATOBAR assault carriers. With a force like that plus land based assets, I seriously doubt the US would even want a confrontation on the seas around China, there is just too much of an home court advantage, you also need to question the loyalty of the American allies in the region, they are already part of China's economic sphere, all have China as their biggest trading partner, more so in 10 years, if shooting start, they could force the american forces out, or restrict them from launching operations against China from their territory. This would seriously limit the bases from which US can operate from, the nearest is Guam. China will never directly attack the US, nor the US will directly attack China, taiwan is a core issue for China, where the political legitimacy of their political establishment rest upon. taiwan for America is a peripheral issue. You guys already sold them out in 1972, not hard to imagine you'd do it again in 2032.

@obsidianstatue 3 жыл бұрын

@Joseph S if you want to counter my points, then please refrain from using sweeping generalizing statements. people who subscribe to this channel is either in the military/ defense industry or is interested in military affairs, this is not some indian defense channel hosted by text to speech software reader.

@ronaldfraser1847 4 жыл бұрын

D-Day 1n 1944, and amphibious assaults in the Pacific demonstrate that even a massive bombardment of an assault landing area will not knock out every defensive position if they are strongly constructed and hidden.

@dianapennepacker6854 2 жыл бұрын

Tech allows precision bombing. What are they going to do? Sit there and get obliterated. Personally I see them for rivers. Either way DD type landings won't ever happen.

@raywhitehead730 Жыл бұрын

They did not have nucs in those days.

@speedypete9694 Жыл бұрын

They didn’t have the weapons , technology , and sights we have now a days .

@Kvasir98 4 жыл бұрын

Man, the quality of this channel is escalating quickly! Amazing research on this one. I'm a military enthusiastic, but most of your videos are new info for me. Thanks for keeping us updated!

@91plm 4 жыл бұрын

Are you jocking?! when your next enemy might be China and wish to impose your influence in the Pacific, all you'll get are contested landings. OF COURSE you need new upgraded amphibious vehicles.

@Ag3nt0fCha0s 4 жыл бұрын

This

@kmerc4526 4 жыл бұрын

Bro you misspelled Joking

@___axg96___63 4 жыл бұрын

If we ever went to war with China, do you really think it would be a ground war? I see nukes being used, and doomsday.

@91plm 4 жыл бұрын

@@___axg96___63 You might just get proxy wars, with china trying to make Taiwan revolt or US trying to stir even more unrest in Hong Kong. Either way, being able to hop islands in the Pacific could be an important capability. Plus, China could nuke the US but they can't nuke the whole fleet in the Pacific. Some of them might just escape or survive explosions.

@yochaiwyss3843 4 жыл бұрын

You know how many chineese are there? They can line up all their shores with troops!

@McSkumm 4 жыл бұрын

It'll probably be like the DUKW's from WW2 era, that could control their tire pressure, so on really loose ground they would drop the pressure to almost nothing to get better traction.

@jantschierschky3461 4 жыл бұрын

They can but still can bog in especially in the dunes. So I see wheeled vehicles in that environment very critically

@jantschierschky3461 4 жыл бұрын

@Joseph S I would not to be that sure, buoyancy does not mean low ground pressure. Dunes can even bog track vehicles

@HanSolo__ 2 жыл бұрын

Your choice is turret with the Mk44 30mm or not digging the APC out of the beach. In both cases you have foam istead of HHS plates and pressurd baked ceramics/armor steel sandwich.

@thetigerstripes Жыл бұрын

I landed on the Beach at Chu Lai, South Vietnam in March 1965 with Regimental LANDING Team 7. 15 years after Inchon.

@jesperohlrich7090 4 жыл бұрын

It needs to be faster on the water. Don’t care about the over horizon launch. I’m talking about going full Viking. If you can go up river super fast, you can change the dynamics of the battle, and force the enemy to spread their forces, and you can hit very hard this way.

@blahorgaslisk7763 4 жыл бұрын

Problem is armor is heavy and heavy is slow in the water... So you can either have good armor or good speed in water, your choice. And no, just adding bigger engines isn't a good solution as it makes the vehicle even heavier, gulps down even more fuel so you need larger fuel tanks. Keep it up and you end up with a monstrosity not even a mother could love. If you were to compromise on armor and that top heavy gun you could make something much faster, but would you want to sit in something with tinfoil for armor even if it did manage to do 30 knots on it's way to shore? Way back I was convinced that speed and light armor was the way to go, but with the way weapons has developed I no longer think that's a good trade off. I had dreams about small compact hover craft with something like a two or three man crew and some kind of small rocket launcher. These would have been cheap to build, nimble and fast, and with a really small radar signature they should be hard to pinpoint when used really close to the coast or even on land. However that was me thinking that it took skill to target the weapons, and that it would be hard to pinpoint small fast targets like these. However now all it takes is a mouse click to designate a target and computers can do the rest such as compensating for relative motion vectors and even wind. And they are only getting more capable which makes the tinfoil craft more and more of a death trap no matter how fast you make them. I still think something like this could be a tool, but then they would be automated drones capable of carrying heavier weapons at a lower cost than airborne drones. But would I want to crew one of these today or in ten years? No, no way... When you finally get up on land the armor is a lot less of a problem. Yes it's still heavy and make the vehicle less nimble, but it takes a lot less power to get it to move, especially if you can use a road than it took to power through the water. Still you won't want to take something this heavy through a true swamp. Deep mud isn't really made for vehicles to swim through.

@jesperohlrich7090 4 жыл бұрын

Blahorga Slisk the answer is off cause you get both. So low speed heavy vehicles for urban operations, and light vehicles for scouting and lightning strikes. And you can actually make one vehicle that does both. It will just need add on armor for the urban ops. If you go this route you could use the new foam armor, it beats a 50cal at half the weight of steel, and add panels when you need them. That would give you plenty of engine power for fast operations, and protection against most infantry weapons. Here is a link to the article about the foam armor www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190605105943.htm

@calebmulder4236 4 жыл бұрын

Interesting point, but idt the majority of landing spots conveniently have deep, undefended rivers nearby. I think faster land travel is a big advantage. Cheers

@MS-gr2nv 4 жыл бұрын

Saved a buck though...stupid

@xxportalxx. 4 жыл бұрын

@@calebmulder4236 not to mention the safety of coming into a firefight from land with cover, rather than a completely coverless beach landing.

@arthurhickman045 4 жыл бұрын

Ummm I'm pretty sure d-day was MEANT to be an uncontested beach landing... they did bomb the hell out of the beaches and there were still a lot of defences

@jarink1 4 жыл бұрын

One of the few truly uncontested landings performed by the USMC was on Okinawa.

@peter9668 4 жыл бұрын

@@jarink1 and Guadalcanal

@Rampant16 4 жыл бұрын

D-Day was never, ever expected to be uncontested. They took a lot of steps to limit German resistance but nobody ever thought it'd be quick and painless, regardless of the subterfuge and shore bombardments.

@cavscout678 2 жыл бұрын

@@Gridlocked I think that's the point.

@FLORATOSOTHON 3 жыл бұрын

Actually no LSTs were lost by Exocet Missiles during the Falklands War. The two ships that were hit by 500lbs bombs were Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram. Sir Galahad was a part of the British task force during the Falklands War, sailing from HMNB Devonport on 6 April 1982, with 350 Royal Marines. On 8 June, while preparing to unload soldiers from the Welsh Guards, in Port Pleasant, Fitzroy, together with RFA Sir Tristram, Sir Galahad was attacked by three Skyhawks from the Argentine V Brigada Aérea, each carrying three US-pattern Mark 82 500 lb (227 kg) bombs, with retarding tails. At approximately 14:00 local time, Sir Galahad was hit by two or three bombs, which exploded and started fires. The explosions and subsequent fire caused the deaths of 48 crew and soldiers. Following the air attack, the fires quickly began to burn out of control. On 21 June, the hulk was towed out to sea by the RMAS Tug Typhoon and sunk by HMS Onyx using torpedoes; it is now an official war grave, designated as a protected place under the Protection of Military Remains Act. In April 1982 RFA Sir Tristram was diverted from Belize to the Falkland Islands to take part in Operation Corporate, the British effort to retake the Falkland Islands. On 8 June, while transporting men and equipment to Fitzroy Cove alongside the Sir Galahad, Sir Tristram was attacked by A-4 Skyhawks from Argentine Air Force's V Brigada Aérea (FAA), each loaded with three 500 lb Mark 82 bombs. At approximately 14:00 local time the decks were strafed and two crew were killed. A 500 lb bomb penetrated the deck, but failed to explode immediately, allowing the remaining crew to be evacuated. Following the later explosion, Sir Tristram was abandoned. Immediately following the end of the conflict, Sir Tristram was towed to Port Stanley, where she was used as an accommodation ship. Sir Tristram then returned to the United Kingdom in 1983 on a heavy lift ship and was extensively rebuilt.

@samtimms4300 4 жыл бұрын

Just wanna point out that the two British ships where sunk by exoset missiles that are aircraft based not shore

@Dori-Ma 4 жыл бұрын

And the other three RN ships sunk were taken out by bombs with an additional...12, I think, damaged (minor, moderate, major) by various means from said aircraft.

@nehrigen 4 жыл бұрын

This guy really doesn't know what he's talking about.

@endlessspace.8776 4 жыл бұрын

i have always believed that the old Doctrine of landing on a beach that was full of the enemy was fools errand, you literally land on a beach that you will know you are going to loose up to 50% of your troops on the 1st landing. We have the tech today to make sure that does not happen. Essentially the landing craft is a landing craft and does not need an expensive price if you have the means to clear the beach before the troops arrive. This Doctrine of landing your troops on a contested beach without support needs to go. Our Marines lives are on the line and they should be protected.

@orlock20 4 жыл бұрын

Some areas can be lightly contested such as Somalia. The only highly contested areas where a beach landing would be necessary would be if China took an island and the U.S. wanted to take it back.

@purebloodedgriffin 3 жыл бұрын

@Joseph S You can literally replace the oxygen in a landing zone with fire, you can rely on bombing (And all those missile boats) to clear it well enough

@thomascampbell4730 2 жыл бұрын

Grand strategy dictates the targets. Missions flow from policy. WWII demonstrated that sometimes the cost in blood must be secondary to the mission. Iwo Jima and Okinawa were necessary, irrespective of the cost. That part of war never changes. The lives of many soldiers and Marines might have been saved if senior leaders had insisted on the equipment appropriate to engaging heavily dug in enemies. Simply assuming that you ca predict the future actions of your enemies borders on insanity and history proves it.

@tombob671 Жыл бұрын

the old adage was you need a 3 to 1 superior numbers to do a successful Amphibious Assault.

@argentux8919 2 жыл бұрын

Correction, the two British ships that were hit by Exocet missiles during the Malvinas Conflict were lunched from Super Etendard fighter jets which approach it the ships flying 10 meters over the waves.

@davidlewis9346 4 жыл бұрын

You ever notice as soon as someone says “this is obsolete”, you need that specific item/skill almost immediately?

@jamesngotts 2 жыл бұрын

We saw these this weekend at Camp Pendleton. They were wheeling around off road at pretty respectable speeds and climbing up some of the old steep tank trails.

@MostlyPennyCat 4 жыл бұрын

Bay Systems? Nah, it's Bee Aay See Systems, British Aerospace Engineering. As far as I know, and it may have changed now, it's the world's largest arms manufacturer

@johnknapp952 4 жыл бұрын

Don't know were the See came from but yes, you say each letter by itself, B A E.

@chrischong6613 4 жыл бұрын

It's a joke, he pronounced it wrong on purpose. Bae is a popular internet vernacular.

@jackjohnson6884 4 жыл бұрын

If they want people to say each letter why doesn't it have stops between letters B.A.E.

@tacitdionysus3220 4 жыл бұрын

@@jackjohnson6884 Because the letters no longer abbreviate anything. It originated from British Aerospace (abbreviated BAe) and changed to BAE (always said as letters) Systems when they combined with another company. As 'BAE Systems' is also a trademark, they can specify its appearance any way they like for that purpose. Following your logic, it would have to be launched from ships operated by the U.S.N. and having names beginning with U.S.S.

@devildog1989 3 жыл бұрын

The DOD has a bad habit of saying "that will never happen" after modernization. When the F4 Phantom was sent to Nam it didnt have a gun because "missiles make dog fights a thing of the past." And low and behold, the fighters needed guns because the missiles were garbage and dogfights happened every sortie. So when the Navy say "contested beach landings will never happen again" we should smack that admiral and plan for contested landings. Thats just 1 grunts experience.

@ryanpauloneeyed9669 2 жыл бұрын

This comment truely aged like fine wine 🍷

@devildog1989 2 жыл бұрын

@@ryanpauloneeyed9669 I'm going to take this as a compliment

@ryanpauloneeyed9669 2 жыл бұрын

@@devildog1989 that's how I ment it. I feel the current conflict confirms your sentiment as much as your F4 Phantom example.

@devildog1989 2 жыл бұрын

@@ryanpauloneeyed9669 I'd be inclined to agree

@noahway13 Жыл бұрын

Great one example there.

@paulfribbs8516 Жыл бұрын

Australia had a UK design landing ship with both bow & stern doors! It was once tried that dropping off the recon forces in the small HMAS Tobruk got the 1st troops off quickly! An X merchant navy Rollon/off ship bought for a miniscule 12 Mill $ Aust then backed into the 1st ship to act as the bridge for tanks & the rest to follow on! This was faster than dropping down the pontoon section off the 2nd hand USN Fredricks class bow door ramp ships we also acquired (they held way less than our give away priced stern door Rollon/off ship)! Even if the bridging HMAS Tobruk couldn't get all the way to shore, a short wade by amphib APS would still do the trick!

@brentdallyn8459 4 жыл бұрын

Has a sense of humour, he knows damn well those were air-launched Exocets, just triggered every war history nut cruzing da weave, Comments are gonna blow up over this sudo gaff lol

@pigeoncoop5560 4 жыл бұрын

When asking how many can we fit inside the crewmen always replied with “one more”

@vageto23 4 жыл бұрын

Hey I would suggest looking into the current LAV 25 system that the Marines have. The new AV is basically an LAV that takes too much pre-workout. I'd love to see what you have to say on how the LAV program has done and the comparisons to the SuperAV.

@jeremyespil6297 2 жыл бұрын

My son's unit, 2/4 just completed the certification testing for the ACV, aboard the USS Anchorage.

@MostlyPennyCat 4 жыл бұрын

Growing up with my dad in the Royal Navy, my childhood swimming lessons were with the navy themselves. Their teaching methods were bracingly, er, direct. 8 years old, 10 foot deep end, chuck in a rubber brick, "go get the brick" Followed by a 1.5 kilometer endurance swim. Great stuff.

@MS-gr2nv 4 жыл бұрын

Uphill both ways of course...

@markwierzbicki5307 4 жыл бұрын

None of our beaches were contested in the Falklands. The SAS and SBS had been running missions for several days to confuse the Argies, which worked well enough. Although when 2 Para landed at Blue beach, the SBS were upset as no one had told them we were coming a day early.

@gianpaolovillani6321 3 жыл бұрын

The Amphibious Assault Vehicle is a beautiful military vehicle, I want it to stay in service for decades and never need to be replaced by useless acv.

@stephenbritton9297 4 жыл бұрын

Marines are overdue by 15+ years for a new AAV/APC/AFV or whatever you want to call it. The losses in OIF showed that the vehicle was overdue for replacement. While Marines died, politicians and company argued over the replacement...

@MultiWooley 2 жыл бұрын

Waterproofed the Stryker and called it a day lol… I love the arm floaty around the cannon barrel

@Papi1960R 3 жыл бұрын

Its a Iveco based on the Italian Army's Freccia (Arrow) its a huge jumper forward from the Stryker. Also the Freccia moves at 18 mph in water when fully loaded. Remember the US unit with most opposed amphibious assaults? The Army's 7th Infantry Division. In WW2 the Infantry Regiment that lead the most Marine Amphibious assaults? The 164th RCT of the North Dakota National Guard. The Marines great performance in Iraq? Go to the HQ USMC website and read the AARs and Lessons Learned papers. Even the Marines know their performance in Iraq was mediocre at best. As we say in the Cavalry, "its almost Christmas, have the Marines made it to Baghdad yet?".

@JoeL-ji7uw 4 жыл бұрын

I think a couple platoons with atgms could contest those landings pretty good.

@Ezekiel903 2 жыл бұрын

you still think that a landing will occur like under WW2 circumstances, btw, the Iveco Super AV chosen by the US army can be armed with various guns very easy! Italy and the UK has this vehicle already in service

@Docsporseen1 4 жыл бұрын

I worked with 3rd AAV BN as a corpsman in the early 90's. Those blasted 'tracks needed to be replaced back then (They were testing the "AAAV" at the time but dropped the program). A little late, but certainly needed!!!

@TheJBerg 4 жыл бұрын

Been waiting for this video!!!! Sweetness!

@elphi4321 3 жыл бұрын

History has a strange way of repeating itself, especially when we're not ready for it.

@rookie.9175 4 жыл бұрын

Day 3 of asking a video on CBRN units equipment and other stuff

@thomasbrand2650 4 жыл бұрын

Sorry bro, you picked the wrong MOS.

@rookie.9175 4 жыл бұрын

Still its interesting

@recondo886 4 жыл бұрын

we called it NBC -nuclear, biological, chemical- back in the 1980s. I was stationed with 101st Chemical Company @Ft. Bragg NC. a leg unit assigned to 1st COSCOM. 82nd had 21st Chemical company assigned to them. and yes, pretty damn boring. 18thABNRecondo class 886

@rookie.9175 4 жыл бұрын

@@recondo886 i know that its im talking about their equipment and how it evolved

@Ag3nt0fCha0s 4 жыл бұрын

Look at a diff. Channel. Blacktail defense real stryker vs the bomb

@joeottsoulbikes415 2 жыл бұрын

Thank freakin god! I was in 2nd AAV in 1993. The new doctrine may state publicly that Marines will land uncontested. Even back then training involved our landings planned to happen after the beach and everything for 2 miles inland had been bombed to hell plus elimimation of every and all missle locations that could launch toward the landing ship. The beach would be softened up first by Sea Vipers, Sea Cobras and Harriers before we ever approached. If we were coming from a LPA (Air Craft Carrier with a well rear) we could possibly still land slightly contested areas. We would try to land further inland behind the contested beach by flanking it. The ship would stay farther of shore and we would be lifted in. Troops would land via Osprey 22s and the new Sea Kings are able to lift an LAV 25 or a Super AAV and carry it under slung. So the vehicals crew would land at the same time as there armor transport which would be flown in while it was running immediately boarding it and taking off.

@MrMattumbo 4 жыл бұрын

I think the real point you missed was that modern ASMs can far exceed the range of any landing craft, doesn't matter if you're 100 miles away your ships will be under fire. So whether the Navy truly believes they can take out the defenses is irrelevant to the marines, if the Navy fails in this then they won't make it off the ship anyway. Plus no matter how fast you are in the water ATGMs are faster, you can plow in from 65 miles away at 30 knots and still get destroyed trying to cross that last mile to the beach if dug in defenders are still alive.

@matthiuskoenig3378 3 жыл бұрын

the added range gives the ships more time to intercept the missiles, this is why faster vehicles are needed as the enemy in turn gets more time to intercept the landing forces.

@Awesomes007 4 жыл бұрын

The British learned a tough lesson in the Falklands when the found they didn’t have a strong expeditionary force or logistics setup. We need the ability to land where and when we want and support the troops.

@johnpatz8395 4 жыл бұрын

Defended landing or not, I would think the faster you can get the vehicles onto land the better. I’m not saying the need to be able to go 60 mph through the water, but knocking 25% of the snail’s pace of 8mph just seems insane, opposed landing or not. One thing to remember, the longer your forces are transiting from ships to shore, the more time the enemy has to contest and defend against the landing. And yes, the plan is always to wipe out enemy forces that might contest the landing, but I’ve never seen any evidence that this can be consistently and reliably done. This was constantly the goal during WW2, and in the pacific it wasn’t uncommon for shore defenses to be attacked by aircraft from several carriers, while countless battleship & cruiser batteries worked the eliminate enemy defenses, and yet the only non-contested landing that took place, had zero to do with those assaults, and instead just occurred when enemy forces decided to not defend the beaches, and instead fight inland.

@matthiuskoenig3378 3 жыл бұрын

both the russians and the chinese are going/have gone for faster landing vehicles (28kmph, 17miles per hour)

@edulas1957 3 жыл бұрын

I was thinking of that too, during WW2 we bombed and shelled the shit out of those beaches and still got opposition from them, relying 100% on the beaches being unopposed is a risk

@johnpatz8395 3 жыл бұрын

@@edulas1957 exactly, and today one trooper on shore with an RPG could do more damage to landing craft that entire units were able to during WW2, especially if the landing craft swim at the speed of pedal boats on a pond

@thomascampbell4730 2 жыл бұрын

@@edulas1957 Roger that. The only place that an unopposed landing would be possible would places that are nearly impossible to land upon. If you can land unopposed it is because there is nothing worth seizing there. The two Gulf wars were more akin to huge military exercises than real war. Plenty of time for a build up, which was virtually unopposed, and against foes who were utterly clueless. MPF worked well in those expeditions but in actual opposed landing the value is diminished.

@fettwalker3584 4 жыл бұрын

The new Super AV as you called it. In my opinion is like the marine corps LAV-25. Which can help do beach assault landings. Not perfectly, LAV Crewman complained about how hard it was to swim qual these bad boys. I only know this because the unit I served with was called 1st LAR Battalion. In my opinion, they are combining both aspects of the lav- 25 and the old track av into one so that can bring down cost. Also can do the same job as both, effectively is a different debate but that’s my 2 sense when I saw these bad boys being tested at Del-Mar in Camp Pendleton. I know you were attached to a sticker but the corps had a striker version as well my friend. Cheers brother, great video!

@stevefreeland9255 4 жыл бұрын

Six British ships (and one LCU craft) were sunk during the Falklands War that was fought between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falklands Islands, South Georgia, and South Sandwich Islands in 1982. Two were sunk by Exocet missiles launched by aircraft; the Balance being sunk by bombs.

@rodrigodepierola 4 жыл бұрын

I thought the whole "obsolete" thing had been patented by Ian and Bloke on the Range. Are you paying royalties?

@MrOliverbox 4 жыл бұрын

I’m not a Marine. But increased capability in combat - just in case you can’t foresee everything through the fog of war - May very well equal increased lethality, and more importantly, increased survivability. Naval doctrine may not always work like they think it will; those “near peer” enemies also get a vote... Squid brass making Infantry Assault decisions. Sure.

@thomasheyart7033 3 жыл бұрын

It's called ACV 1.0 Its a modified version of an Italian anphib that's been around for years. The concept was to take something that already existed and modify it to a basic requirement. It is not intended to fully replace the AAV 7. After deployment and getting feed back from the men using it, a 2nd version, ACV 1.2 will be fielded. After more feedback from troops a final replacement forvtye AAV 7 will be built (ACV 2.0) The whole program is to keep the cost down, get new equipment to the Corps ASAP and take real world v desk jockeys input for a full on replacement. The reason for 13 marines was that until 2020 change, a USMC rifle squad was 13 (now 15) so 1 squad to 1 transport

@clarencehopkins7832 2 жыл бұрын

Excellent stuff bro

@fren111 3 жыл бұрын

The simple idea of not having to contest the beach is already a problem, what will happen if the enemy finds a way to contest? if everything was going as planned you wouldn't have to storm a beach in the first place

@matthiuskoenig3378 3 жыл бұрын

why even have amphibious vehicles if its uncontested? why not just use landingcraft to drop off vehicles in the surf.

@brandonlevy8680 2 жыл бұрын

@@matthiuskoenig3378 because landing craft make big juicy targets. Destroying one is literally two birds with one stone. Also, you can only have so many landing craft and they make numerous round trips. Destroy even one and you reduce the amount and speed of reinforcements.

@cannoneer155mm 4 жыл бұрын

I'm a retiree and resent your attitude toward us. We have been there done that and lived to tell about it. So on behalf of my fellow retirees, GO KMA! Go check your history.

@Unforseenak 4 жыл бұрын

This guy is a propaganda jarhead buffoon don't waste your time hahaha.

@Taskandpurpose 4 жыл бұрын

I joke about former enlisted types like myself all the time too. I'm only kidding didn't mean any offense.

@macfilms9904 4 жыл бұрын

Military vehicle foundation I'm a part of actually has the EFV prototype. It is so ridiculously big that to truck it to our (redacted secret lair location) they had to take off all sorts of parts. It's friggin huge.

@SolidMikeP 4 жыл бұрын

Man, I remember watching your first vid and thinking, good info, bad communication. Everything is getting better

@alejandrorojas1423 4 жыл бұрын

Fucking dope. I have been waiting for this. I want those sweet sweet surplus AAV to convert into amphib RV for island camping.

@phillipmorel5116 3 жыл бұрын

I second this motion!!!

@armynation31B5V5P 4 жыл бұрын

Rather jump out of a plane (Airborne) than conduct an amphibious assault.

@travis4977 4 жыл бұрын

Choking on diesel fumes and eating crayons in the back of a trak ain't that bad... Oh who am I kidding, it sucks ass.

@terry8794 4 жыл бұрын

You can't always do that though, air defenses can blow those aircraft up

@suspicioususer 3 жыл бұрын

At least you could drive back into the water. If you drop in surrounded by the enemy, theres not much you can do

@zonzone6635 4 жыл бұрын

Nice vid man!

@laowu8024 4 жыл бұрын

Looks a lot like the French VBCI

@valegendre 3 жыл бұрын

Yes exactly ,I thought the same thing when I saw the thumbnail .

@Danster87 4 жыл бұрын

0:18 looks more like an LAV III to me.

@donkeymarco 3 жыл бұрын

ACV is a modified version of SuperAV presented about 2010 by Iveco Defence. Ir is derived from Iveco Defence / OtoMelara VBM Freccia that is used by italian army as infantry fighting vehicle. Freccia is part of Centauro vehicles family.

@bbconrad92 4 жыл бұрын

Getting stuck in a smaller hunk of metal and being in the water even longer sounds great

@Me-gt7oy 3 жыл бұрын

So, it’s a NEW version of an LAV? Looks exactly like an LAV, which is a amphibious, 8 wheeled light armored vehicle.

@TheMajorActual 3 жыл бұрын

So they rebuilt the LAV. Well -- that only took 35 years and more money than God.....And yes, O Mighty Pogues, look it up: the Army's Stryker is the derp version of the LAV. Also: Tarawa and Iwo Jima

@LikeUntoBuddha 4 жыл бұрын

"Something" is a lot better than nothing. They poured a lot of money down the drain, wasted billions. I understood it and like $6 Billion. They need something to hit the beach and can keep moving, like a Stryker. I think the new outlook (the dang Marines have to have F-35's, funking it up, they are the reasons for a lot of the high cost) IMO, I'll take armor over speed. As far as tanks and speed, the main complaint is that the "infantry" cannot keep up with the tanks. Well, build the tanks slower. This is a good ride for the Marines and I'm sure that they will keep the old big boys ready somewhere. But WW2 in the Pacific is not going to happen again. That war saved the Marines. The days of dropping off a lot of foot soldiers on the beach will not come back. When I was in the Army they were going heavy, it seems like they are always searching for a role. They were supposed to back us up in Germany. We should not spend $6 Billion to maybe land on one beach one day. This last thing. I'd like to write a book about this and something else. Forget the wide open (even in Europe) beaches, they are well built-up areas now. You would have a hard time finding an empty beach that we need to send in someone. I would love to see a CGI Normandy invasion set with 2020 changes And not just the beach, miles and miles of built-up areas.

@matthiuskoenig3378 3 жыл бұрын

"build the tanks slower", everytime that happens, the slower tanks get out maneuvered by the faster tanks and get annihilated. firepower is the most important aspect of a tank, followed by mobility and then followed by armour.

@ordo3k4os 4 жыл бұрын

just a little addition superAV is an italian product made by IVECO ; BAE is only responsible for the commercialization in USA

@paladin556 3 жыл бұрын

BAE builds them with iveco drive train parts. I do believe iveco designed it, but iveco does not build the ones we use in the USA. They are American built by BAE.

@paladin556 3 жыл бұрын

Ive also never heard it called a super AV. We call it an ACV.

@ordo3k4os 3 жыл бұрын

@@paladin556 just because USA laws dictate that for your ACV, Iveco can produce and sell in other countries ie Quatar

@jeronimocanton9557 4 жыл бұрын

Fun fact from the Falkland’s the Argentine Marine land on AAV on April the second 1982 just like the ones US is trying to replace. Despite being a contested beach they didn’t lost any of them that day and later where send back to the continent.

@christiandtorres9843 4 жыл бұрын

Beach wasnt contested, but the road going from the airport to the town was, because it was a natural chole point. One lvtp got 97 hits from a 7.62 GPMG.

@nicolasdiottalevi 3 жыл бұрын

Actually, the SuperAv is a 100% Italian vehicle, designed by Iveco-Oto Melara (BAE systems only takes care of the construction). I am sorry that the fundamental role of Italy is not mentioned in the video.🇮🇹🇺🇸

@johnd2058 4 жыл бұрын

@jamespiattsr7758 4 жыл бұрын

Marines have proven themselves on land and see. They were used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Quit talking shit and move along. The Army and Marine are two different branches and missions.

@johnd2058 3 жыл бұрын

@@jamespiattsr7758 _Exactly_ correct. Any notions that the USMC is wholly obsolete, or will be within the foreseeable future, are poorly-informed. It seems to me that the "different missions" part of your statement is being re-accentuated; the USMC is repositioning for a return to what E.B. Sledge's book "The Old Breed" title refers to: _pre_ - FDR-era. A time when the USMC was more like a tenth of the size of the Army, rather than half. This will permit a degree of elitish-ness, like the British Royal Marines have with a similar endstrength ratio, the degree which would return Marine Infantry to distinguishable superiority over their Army counterparts. Already, radical solutions have been proposed, such as limiting Marine Infantry slots to re-enlistees with proven maturity... so, basically, better start by letting those E-3's in charge of fire teams move up to E-4 without having to do NCO school, like the Army does.

@nextup91 3 жыл бұрын

This video didn't age too well...rip to the Marines

@hanzsolo5460 3 жыл бұрын

i was wondering if anyone was gonna mention the drownings

@theimmortal4718 3 жыл бұрын

They weren't in this vehicle.

@milgeekmedia 2 жыл бұрын

Hmmm... Lots to think about here. My Uncle Arthur was a sailor on HMS Hawkins which provided fire support for the US Army landing at Omaha beach, but as you pointed out they did this from visual range of the beach. Even so, the losses of landing craft and soldiers just getting to the beach weren't insignificant. BUT having said that, the costliest phase of the D-Day landings were the transitional progress from the water itself up to the beach defence line - having a new AAFV with a heavier weapon makes sense in overcoming this part of the mission. Like you, my concern is more about the general fashion for wheeled AFVs (Britain is just about to get rid of it's Warrior AFV in favour of the wheeled Boxer). Again, going back to WW2, vehicle traction on a beach landing (or lack of) is what the British learned at the Dieppe disaster where many vehicles got stuck on the shoreline [in this case they were tracked BUT could not get purchase on a shingle beach - kinda the same as the fear of a wheeled AFV not getting enough purchase on a sandy beach?]. And I am VERY dubious about the 'non-contested' beach idea BUT I guess what they mean is that no modern potential enemy nation (even China) has built anything like the 'Fortress Europe' style coastal defences that the Germans did in WW2, so in that sense modern AAFVs would find more space for a breakthrough??? Finally, about the new AAFVs being smaller and slower; carrying less troops is kinda a good thing as you are not putting all your eggs in one basket and are accepting that there would be losses in a landing, so better to loss have a section than a full section. And as for being slow, to make the kind of difference in speed that would make the AAFV less of a target you wouldn't so much need a fast AAFV as a speed boat!!!! Whatever speed an AAFV is going through the water they are just as venerable to modern shoulder fired systems like NLAW or Javelin - so beach 'prep' is definitely the better tactic than relying on a 'fast' AAFV. Very thought provoking video, thank you.

@CAPNMAC82 4 жыл бұрын

Marine Squads are 13, the LVTP 7 (the direct ancestor of the AVV) always had to had a partial squad loaded in to be "full"--or they rolled with seven empty seats for unit cohesion. &Uncontested beach means being able to deploy PhibCB units to use dozers or similar equipment to get you beach exits. The beach is uncontested, so there's no one to shoot at. New doctrine is that the beach is only necessary as a logistics point.

@gardnert1 4 жыл бұрын

"South Sea"? I think you mean "South Taiwan Sea"...

@RJHEllis 4 жыл бұрын

careful... lol

@jonseilim4321 4 жыл бұрын

That's like calling the "Persian Gulf", "Houthi Gulf" or something inane like that

@jamielancaster01 4 жыл бұрын

The missiles that destroyed the two British ships were NOT launched from land. The missiles were ‘AM39 Exocet’ air-launched anti-ship missile from an Argentinian Super Étendard fighters!

@jonathangrantham678 3 жыл бұрын

Only one, and I say one! British ship was hit by land cased Exocet. This was HMS Glamorgan. She was struck in the helicopter hanger and weathered the damage well without being rendered combat ineffective.

@glennpeterson1357 2 жыл бұрын

During the Falklands war, British ships were hit 12 times by bombs that didn’t explode. The reason was the Argentine pilots released the bombs too low so didn’t arm in time. Crazy! Amazing how many air attacks the Argentines were able to drive home

@randomazn420 3 жыл бұрын

My baby brother is track. Hes at Lejune right now than going to 29 palms in March than going over to Japan in August. Couldn't be any more prouder. YAT-YAS

@jorehir 3 жыл бұрын

This vehicle was actually designed by IVECO, an Italian company with strong ties to FIAT. So, your marines are basically driving FIATs heheh

@Joshua_N-A 2 жыл бұрын

Italian firms created a joint venture with each other to make a better equipment or vehicles. The joint in JSF would've been appropriately referred to the joint venture of 3 biggest defense contractors in the US.

@yochaiwyss3843 4 жыл бұрын

Ah yes, the mythical non contested landing. Remind us again how it fared against the Japanese after the US dropped half of Detroit's annual produce of metal over each island "Clearing it off Hostiles" or the least defended shore in the Atlantic Wall: Normandy (and specifically Omaha)? Surely it went splendidly and according to plan!

@Scrunchy05 4 жыл бұрын

Much different situation nowadays. Back in WW2 we didnt have thermal cameras to see troop movements or pinpoint missles to hit directly on targets, just shell everything in the area. Beach landings don't really matter that much if they have large payload missiles and bombs though lol

@rmj2n 3 жыл бұрын

One RPG hit on an AAV will kill everyone inside. Nasiriyah, the battle of the bridges, taught us a valuable lesson about the limitations of that vehicle.

@gdolson9419 4 жыл бұрын

That IS NOT a replacement for the AAV, its a supplement to. It's not as amphibiously capable (it doesn't handle rough seas as well as the AAV), it doesn't carry enough troops/cargo (you only have so much room aboard a ship for vehicles), and I don't believe it swims as fast (the longer you spend in the water the longer you're vulnerable). As to beach defenses being neutralized prior to landing - ROFL - Yeah, that worked so well at Tarawa, Peleliu, and Iwo Jima. But ... but ... smart weapons you say. Iwo Jima - caves/tunnels.

@kellerweskier7214 3 жыл бұрын

One thing i do like to see right now, is that the Army and the Marines are finally being split apart to play their roles.

@curtiscains8533 3 жыл бұрын

Thank You for your experience and explanation and as well the difference in mission capabilities of the US Army and US Marine Corps. My thinking is simple. There should be a simple field installed rubber/steel track kit to install on the rear two sets of wheels when encountering wet soggy or loose soil. Then remove to accelerate to the FEBA....

@maureencora1 3 жыл бұрын

AAV was Great Amtack for 45 yrs. I'm Gonna Miss It.

@CallumTheOkie 3 жыл бұрын

We may not need it in the foreseeable future but I think it’s a great tool to keep in our back pocket, because if we wind up needing it and don’t have it, then we’re fucked

@davis_the_devil6829 4 жыл бұрын

Ur videos r vary interesting and keep it up I love ur videos

@blackfoxhound3197 2 жыл бұрын

I’m late to the race but I’m going to toss out an idea. CTIS, just like with a lot of army vehicles if one is applies it appropriately the odds of getting stuck improves ( even if it’s only slightly) on heavy vehicles getting stuck in soft sand and mud with the correct setting on the controller. Another point is that CTIS can be protected decently against small arms fire. All one would have to do is make a cover for the hub if it is a wheeled vehicle like a army PLS or HET.

@johnlord8337 3 жыл бұрын

Part of these designs were from the mid-1980s with a (ahem) specially-designed floating and surfing tank - with a front blade. You see this variable front blade on these amphibs.

@alistairg6770 2 жыл бұрын

Hi I don’t like the type that picks up on things in videos, but the Royal Navy lost the frigate HMS Sheffield to an air to surface Exocet dropped by a Super Etendard and the converted freighter Atlantic Conveyor (carrying helicopters for land assault) met the same fate by Super Etendard. Both ships lost. A third, HMS Glamorgan was hit by a surface to surface Exocet launched from land. She was damaged but survived. Anyway, I love your videos and I have learnt a great deal from them. Only reason why I made the comments was my father was in the Falklands in forward naval reconnaissance prior to the fighting and the loss of our naval vessels to stand-off munitions really affected him.

@WardenWolf 4 жыл бұрын

Even if you don't have to assault the beach under fire, you still need a way to quickly get mobile firepower onto land. For this, you basically have two choices: amphibious assault vehicles, which can start fighting the moment they exit the water and keep the beach secured, and landing craft air cushions (LCAC), which can transport larger vehicles (including two Abrams tanks) directly onto the beach. Ideally you would use the AAV to secure the area and screen the LCAC while it deploys heavier equipment. I agree with the Navy's assessment that they won't ever need to land under fire again. Modern aircraft and missiles all but ensure that any significant beach defenses will be obliterated long before vehicles reach shore, and any survivors will be too shell shocked to put up much of a fight.

@davidjardenil8393 3 жыл бұрын

The Philippines is an archipelago we do not discount the possibility of a beach landing even if it is said that the last beach landing was sometime in the 1950s during the Korean War. Here, in the Philippines, it is very, very possible much more during times of calamities, disasters and even pandemic. Lately, we have this series of typhoons in Luzon the more reason why we need this kind of amphibious assault vehicle. This AAV can wade through mud, floods and surging water if necessary. That is why it is a must. We need this now! Thank you. God Bless America!!!

@patrickdc8396 2 жыл бұрын

Great video dude! Please do a video on the EFV, it certainly looked cool

@jamesmerkel9442 3 жыл бұрын

rocket pods r the cheapest cost & biggest punch per , & high rate of fire all around option of defense against most threats.

@joeottsoulbikes415 3 жыл бұрын

I have served with both 2nd LAV & 2nd AAV battalions out of Camp Lejeune, NC. Like you said tactics and warfare have changed. The ideal of a D Day type of landing are long gone. In a war troops will land in low or uncontested beaches. They need amphibious vehicles that perform far better inland than the AAV could have dreamed of. The AAV had pitiful defensive and no offensive capability beyond the Marines inside it. When they tried to add a larger turret, cannons, missiles and chaff/smoke they were then too heavy and sank in the ocean. This new tool has taken everything that the LAV25/Stryker did well and upped it 100%. The LAV25 has been used by the Marines for decades. The Army saw how capable it was and needed to replace the aging Bradley's. The Army took the LAV25, added the newest armor tech, cannons, missiles and counter measures at that time and named it Stryker. Now they have just done the exact same thing again. The last few attempts at making something new failed so so bad. Take what you already know works and give it your latest tech. This is just a new LAV25 evolution. Better everything. You should do a video showing all the versions of it. All everyone sees is the one with a turret single cannon, maybe a 2 slot missile launcher and counter measures. They have a version with a giant gatling cannon like the A-10 Thunderbolt jet has and 4 ground to air missles for anti aircraft that can also rip most main battle tanks apart if it needs too. They have one with a TOW missle launcher on it to run circles around and kill main battle tanks. They have one with radar equipment to help guide strike jets to ground targets or help detect air threats. There is a tow truck version to drag broken ones and tanks back home. They have so many uses beyond recon and troop delivery.

@raptor2-40delta2 3 жыл бұрын

I would’ve added that the SuperAV is an Iveco vehicle, developed to replace Italian amphibious units as well.. bae systems got later interested in this vehicle and decided to join creating a partnership to give that vehicle to the USMC too but with modifications.. in fact, the SuperAV you showed with the 30mm was actually proposed to the Italian army and navy, the one created with BAE systems didn’t come with armaments at first

@maxwill6408 2 жыл бұрын

When I was in the 82 Airborne back inn the early 70's and the Vet Nam war was winding down and troops levels were being cut a lot of the old timers were saying that the Marine Corp was not needed anymore. They figured that paratroopers could just be drooped behind the beaches and destroy the beach defense which would allow the Marine Corp to waltz right in. As a brand new paratrooper to the unit I suggested that if there was no Marine Corp to hit the beach then the US Army in some form or fashion would have to do it. I said let the Marines do as I did not want to live and ride on some ship out at sea.