"The Amphibious Combat Vehicle Delusion" Topic
6 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Profile Article How do you depict "shattered forest" on the tabletop?
Featured Movie Review
|
The Membership System will be closing for maintenance in 14 minutes. Please finish anything that will involve the membership system, including membership changes or posting of messages.
 Editor in Chief Bill   | 20 Jun 2019 5:57 p.m. PST |
The Marine Corps is purchasing a next-generation amphibious vehicle for the wrong fight. While preaching one thing about modernizing the force to execute the critical tasks outlined in the Marine Operating Concept (MOC), it is doing another… link |
| Lion in the Stars | 21 Jun 2019 9:34 a.m. PST |
Yeah, the last time the USMC tried to get a high-water-speed amphibious assault vehicle, the EFV, to be able to launch a waterborne attack from outside anti-ship missile range, the range of antiship missiles increased faster than the EFV's development time. The EFV was canceled because it couldn't swim to shore from outside antiship missile range! |
| emckinney | 21 Jun 2019 9:39 p.m. PST |
Well-reasoned piece. This is the sort of question that wargaming can help with: try out the same scenario with different forces, try the same force in different scenarios. It's all well and good to argue theoretically, but it's completely different when you see it concretely. BTW, I don't think any landing in the 20th century failed because the beachhead was expanded too fast. The Dardanelles and Anzio landings became useless bloodbaths because the commanders were too timid. |
| Thresher01 | 22 Jun 2019 7:43 p.m. PST |
That's a silly reason to cancel the program. That's like cancelling bombers because they can get shot down by bombers and SAMs. They should be part of an "all forces" mix, and the enemy SSMs should be "neutralized" before the amphibs are launched. |
| Zephyr1 | 22 Jun 2019 9:00 p.m. PST |
I'd think the first waves in would be delivered by helos anyway… |
| Lion in the Stars | 23 Jun 2019 6:47 p.m. PST |
The primary point of the EFV was that it could be launched from outside ASM range, and still get to shore in 30 minutes. Several people thought that it was absurd that the EFV required an engine nearly twice as powerful as that of an Abrams. Which was required for the EFV to have that over-water speed. |
|
