"15mm AAV7A1 Master Photos Posted on my Blog" Topic

I posted a few pics on my 15mm AA7A1 master on my blog. I got carried away and took the pics with about 20 minutes work left to be finished, but it is now finished and will be in the mold tomorrow.

Anyway, for those who might be interested, the link is:

link

Thanks for looking.

Great work!

Oh, my!

I do not need to start modern USMC, I do not need to start modern USMC, I do not need to start modern USMC, I do not need to start modern USMC…

But I want…

Anxiously awaiting this

Outstanding!!

Looks superb, as always! Well done!

Will you be doing the LVTP model as well?

Not sure which the Argentinians used for the Falklands Invasion, but imagine it may have been the earlier model. I'm definitely in the market for a few of those, and probably some of these too.

I need three of these!!!

Jeff

Looks great waitng to place an order.

Excellent….now all I need is a CH46, CH47, An Osprey or two and some LCAV's and I will be set for my MEU!

Why so many return rollers?

(Yeah, I was an amtracker – I notice these things…)

Mako11, I have an LVTP7 hull roughed out, and will probably get back to it sometime next year, when I get to filling out my Cold War forces for the late 1970s.

ScottS, That caused me some confusion for awhile. In the end, because the most complete set of drawings that I have indicated three return rollers on each side.

When I first found the drawings, and started working on the tracks, I thought that they were wrong. I checked my photos and either couldn't see that part of the vehicle due to the angle, or it was obscured by dust or shadow. Some photos clearly did not have them, but other vehicles seemed to have a different track profile, which suggested return rollers.

My books weren't much help, so I started searching on the internet and found many pics of AAV7s in personel, command, and engineering versions with the rollers. The curious thing is that I also found bunches of what are clearly re-worked machines of the AAV7 standard (new headlights, trim vane, applique armor), but without the return rollers. My guess is that the new build LVTPA1s received a new (or modified) suspension system, and that the 1970s chassis rebuilt to the "A1" standard have the old suspension, though I haven't found that clearly stated.

After more anxiety than it was probably worth, I simply went with the label and return rollers on the drawings and hoped they were correct.

Sounds good on the LVTP.

Thanks.

Awesome!

…the most complete set of drawings that I have…

Always a nightmare, when you get two sets of drawings that don't compare, so you look at phtoos and they don't match either set of drawings!

Not sure which the Argentinians used for the Falklands Invasion, but imagine it may have been the earlier model

It was. With different shaped headlights.

Compared to:

My books weren't much help, so I started searching on the internet and found many pics of AAV7s in personel, command, and engineering versions with the rollers. The curious thing is that I also found bunches of what are clearly re-worked machines of the AAV7 standard (new headlights, trim vane, applique armor), but without the return rollers. My guess is that the new build LVTPA1s received a new (or modified) suspension system, and that the 1970s chassis rebuilt to the "A1" standard have the old suspension, though I haven't found that clearly stated.

Here's the deal…

There is no such thing as a "new built" AAV-7.

All of the old LVT-7 hulls from the 70s were rebuilt as AAV-7s by FMC back in the 80's as part of what was called SLEP (Service Life Extension Program). This involved a lot of modifications – new engine, new electric-drive weapons station, new removable headlights, etc. The suspension was the same from LVT-7 to AAV-7 – no return rollers.

In the late 80's/early 90's the AAV was further modified. They received the UGWS (Upgunned Weapons Station), applique armor and later EAAK armor, bow planes (not a "trim vane"), etc. They still didn't have return rollers.

In the late 90's there was yet another modification program, called AAV RAM/RS. This gave the 'tracks a new engine and suspension, one which used the same components as the Army's Bradley. This gave them a single return roller on each side.

All of these modifications were gradually phased in over time. When a vehicle reached a certain number of "miles and hours" and started to get worn out it was sent to a program called IROAN (Inspect or Repair Only as Necessary), given a tune-up and a new coat of paint. If a new upgrade was available, it was given "Rebuild to Standard" and got the new stuff, like the new engine/suspension, etc. But this was never completely uniform, so you'd see old stuff hanging on for a while, sometimes for years. For example, the EDWS (Electric Drive Weapons Station, a single M-85 .50 cal) was supposed to be replaced by the UGWS (The 40mm/.50 cal) starting in 1987, but there were still plenty of EDWSs in the Fleet in the 1991 Gulf War. (Yes, I had one.)

Any drawing with three return rollers per side – well, I'd seriously question its provenience, as I've never seen such a vehicle even though I have the scars to prove I was a crewman…

Also – there's no such thing as an "Engineering" AAV. There's Personnel, Command, and Recovery. Recovery vehicles – "R-7's" – are operated by the company level maintenance platoon. The thing is a rolling toolbox. That crane on the back is used to lift a pack (engine and transmission) out of a vehicle for repair, not for any sort of combat engineering. There IS a kit called the "Mk. 154 Triple Shot MCLC" (Mine Clearance Line Charge) that is used by Amtracks assigned to Engineer Battalions to clear minefields – but that's an add-on that drops into the back of the vehicle, not a seperate type of vehicle.

Hey, if you like – like I said, I was a crewman on these things in the USMC for a long time, and I've spent years turning wrenches on them. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have over an e-mail. scottrsprague(at)yahoo.com.

ScottS, Thanks for sharing your experience and thoughts. Very interesting.

Yep, Recovery, not engineering. I clump the two classes of vehicles together, thus my error.

"New build" was referring to the vehicles built in the 1980s, budgeted in fiscal 1981 to 1985, as opposed to the original production run 1971-1974. Unfortunately, I didn't remember when those were produced when I posted off of the top of my head (as I originally researched this 3-4 years ago). Thus the "newly" construction chasis of the 1980s (I dug out my notes) are too old to have had the three return rollers, considering the limited photographic evidence.

With respect to having more than one return roller, Check the pics linked below:

Clearly there are at least two rollers on some of the tracks. When I searched back in December/January (or there abouts, as I had started working on the AAV7 again), I found a pick of one vehicle lurching downward toward the front that seemed to show the lower portion of a third return roller behind the skirt, though couldn't find it quickly tonight.

Given the design characteristics of the track return system, and the stresses/loads on the return rollers, three on each side doesn't seem unreasonable, and most likely prefereable to only two spaced as they are in the photos.

I'd guess that these post-date your service, or otherwise make up a small proportion of the vehicles in service, possibly explaining why you never saw any.

If nothing else, when I get the LVTP7 version, it will have the suspension system without return rollers and the old weapon station, so some mixing and matching will be possible to create the in-between versions.

Yes, that suspension came out after I got out.

It seems like you have this in hand – good luck with the project!

I have about a dozen or so of your models. They are so "bad" that I now find myself in need of purchasing even more. LOL. Being the anti-Lion in the Stars, I DO need to start modern USMC. (I have several packs still waiting for paint.)

I need a small handful of AA7s and put them on my Christmas list. However, since you are forcing me to spend more money, you are off my Christmas card list! Unless of course, you consider little green papers with George Washington's pic to be satisfactory substitutes.

As usual – awesome!