"LVTs at Guadalcanal" Topic

After the Army relieved the Marines at Guadalcanal, they engaged in various mopping up operations, including amphibious landings on the West and southwest side of the island [maybe south, also].

I read they used LVTs for transportation for these landings, anyone have any idea which models they would have used? The Old Glory "Command Decision" line has about 6, 2-3 look like transports, the rest have turrets and look more like support than transport.

Thanks in advance!

Guadalcanal

USMC LVT-1s were mainly used for logistical support at Guadalcanal. LVT-1 proved in this campaign its tactical capabilities, versatility and potential for amphibious operations.

LVT-1 move toward the beach on Guadalcanal. The USS President Hayes (AP-39) is seen in the background.
As LVT-1s were unarmed, the Marines decided to arm them using any available machine gun. Each one was armed with three .30-caliber machine guns (sometimes water-cooled models) and a .50-caliber machine gun. Organization of LVTs of the Amphibian Tractor Battalions for the assault:

Company "A" of 1st Battalion with thirty LVT-1 was assigned to the 5th Marines which was to land on Guadalcanal.
A platoon of LVT-1s would go ashore on Tulagi assigned to 2nd Marine Battalion.[citation needed]
Company "B" was assigned to the 1st Marine Regiment.
The remainder of the 1st Battalion remained with the 1st Division's support group.
Company "A" of the 2nd Battalion was assigned to 2nd Marine Regiment, the landing force reserve.

link

IIRC eventually there were 4 versions of the LVT besides the LVT 1 …

LVT 2

LVT(A)1 (w/37mm turret)

LVT(A)4 (w/75mm Howitzer turret)

LVT-4 Water Buffalo

Well, the OP's question was about Army use of LVT's
in Jan '42. Extant photo's show what have to be
LVT-1's used by Army infantry during Patch's
Western offensive.

yeah, that sounds right, ed.
Links to photos welcomed!

Yes, the US ARMY had Amph Tank Bns too …

Sorry Stalkey – the jpegs I saw will not show with
a link.

Suggest you google 'US Army LVT-1'. You should get
multiple pages of hits, some with imagery, some with
good information.

Wikimedia has imagery as does worldwarphotos.com,
GlobalSecurity.org and others.

And, in 2004 when I was in the Solomons, the LVTs are still there. Not exactly in prime condition but certainly recognisable.

There is an excellent and extensive article by Harry Yiede (author: The Infantry's Armor) published on the Chieftain's Hatch: link

It gives you, in one place, a history of US Army Amphibious Tank Battalions in the Pacific theater in WW2. From the Solomons to Okinawa, by battalion, who did what where and attached to whom. While not providing a table of effectives for each and every landing, it does refer in the text and photo captions to specific Amtrack/Amtank versions used in each landing.

All meticulously researched and footnoted, for your further reading pleasure.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Good intel Mark !

Too bad those LVTs you saw mgk4167 were not at least in a museum.

The UK also used LVT-4 Buffalos in '44-'45, from the US in the canals, wet, marshy ground around Antwerp, the Scheldt Estuary, etc. Perfect place for them.

Often wondered why not one used on D Day. I guess the answer is simply Pacific took priority. Must wonder if they would have made any difference at all on Omaha for example.

Canadians used them in the flooded Netherlands up to the end of the war.

Also, Canada used LVT-4 Buffalos in '44-'45, from the US in the canals, wet, marshy ground around Antwerp, the Scheldt Estuary, etc. Perfect place for them.

Must wonder if they would have made any difference at all on Omaha for example.

They may of had more armor than most of the other Landing Craft at Normandy. But I don't think firepower of the 37mm and 75mm howitzer would have made much of a difference.

But it would be an interesting scenario to wargame it with LVTs along with the other landing craft …

Of course if more of the M4 DDs made it to the beach that may have made difference too.

Often wondered why not one used on D Day. I guess the answer is simply Pacific took priority.

My understanding is that they were in fact used on D-Day (more below). As to Pacific taking priority … not so much. There were something like 200 LVTs of various marks in Europe by the D-Day timeframe (sorry, don't recall the exact number on the exact date of June 6).

However, US Army brass in ETO did not see the Amtracks as needed for the assault landing. They believed the DD Shermans and the Higgins boats were the right solution.

Up to that point, the US Army in MTO and ETO had not really experienced an opposed landing. And they were not particularly tuned in (whether by will or by circumstance) to the lessons the USMC had learned in 1943 landings (some of which were VERY MUCH opposed).

So the LVTs that were present in US Army inventories were used for the real issue that the US Army in ETO was worried about -- the logistics build up once the foothold had been gained. They were used, as the DUKWs were, primarily for ship-to-shore shuttling as the troops moved inland.

Later they were used several times for major river crossings (in both ETO and MTO), and of course for the clearing of the Scheldt.

I have to believe that Omaha would have gone a bit better, and a few lives would have been saved, if some portion of the "landing craft" in the first wave had had the ability to climb ashore through the surf line, and across the beach, to deposit their troops at the foot of the bluffs. If they also provided some measure of direct-fire gunfire support even with MGs, much less 37mm and 75mm HE, well so much the better.

Of course many would have been lost in the process. But better to lose machines than crunchies.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

yes they were used on d day, lvt2 and 4 were used.
look above the dozer winch at 53 seconds in
youtu.be/8XDn36mAx8U
more here
youtu.be/oy2SpxRFwFk
and a pic of a scrap yard in normandy

Good post Mark. It may have made a difference with LVTs in the first waves ? Along more DDs hitting the beach. But I think the 37mm & 75mm would of had little effect on many of the hardened Germans positions. But yes as always better than not having that firepower. Those that did not get hit and took the troops closer to the cliffs could have made a difference. Again, I'd like to see someone wargame it, etc. And yes as always better to use/lose ammo & equipment than men …

Wow shaun that is great intel ! I've never heard that any LVTs were used at Normandy ! And I've studied and gamed D-Day often. Even at the US ARMY Infantry School. I've got to do more research !

link

LVTs were used in the Normandy landings, but their use by the United States was limited as the US Army doctrine in Europe viewed the Sherman DD as the answer to assault on heavily defended beaches. LVT-2s were used to help unload supplies after the landings on Utah Beach from the cargo ships off the coast to the beach and through the nearby swamps.

legion 4
i spend hours sometimes just going through youtube, especialy pathe news.
spotted lots of odd things on there over the years inc normandy lvt's.
the info is out there to find.
like the alecto sp not used and 2 turn up in berlin in 1945!

More on the Alecto here

link

I, for one, had never heard of it.

I think the LVT's with the short 75 howitzer turret had a gun stabilizer (elevation only) so could have provided fire support on the way in. So did the LVT's mounting the 37mm gun. Firing WP and canister would have provided great cover for the landing troops.

Wolfhag

Shaun I too have never heard of the Alecto either until you mentioned it. I had to look it up – link

Wolf the LVT with the 75 is basically the same turret as on the US M8 HMC. And the 37mm turret is basically an M3 Stuart Lgt Tank. But I'm sure you and other here knew that.

I've see photos of the LVT(A)4 w/75 firing at high angle as it was being used for Indirect Fire.

And IIRC the 37mm on the M3[and M5(?)] and AT gun could fire a pretty good anti-personnel round. Something like the
"Beehive" round IIRC used in Vietnam.

Firing WP would have been a good tactic too. I guess we can only wonder want the landing losses would have been if the LVTs lead the invasion along with some M4 DDs.

Seems the more we discuss this, I think the LVTs could have made a difference if for nothing else to reduce troop losses. Which is a good thing !

US Army brass in ETO did not see the Amtracks as needed for the assault landing. They believed the DD Shermans and the Higgins boats were the right solution.

Mark you mean to tell me that you believe that the US Military, in this case the Army, had made questionable assumptions that could have lead to poor tactical use of available weapons systems ? I'm shocked ! Shocked I tell you !!

I must apologise for not thanking everyone for their responses to my original question. I simply "knew" there were no LVTs in Operation Neptune. But there they are sure enough!

Amazing to spot that one at 53 secs….took me ages!