LCVP (WWII) question - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Military vehicles, aircraft, ships, guns and other military equipment. Plus any general military discussions that don't belong elsewhere on the board.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

User avatar
By Zagadka
#13681582
My basic question is why the fuck they put the unloading ramp straight forward.

I know they were built cheaply out of plywood and in mass numbers... but I can't imagine how many soldiers just never had a chance in hell once that ramp went down. It is like walking in a straight line into enemy fire. It couldn't have been that hard to have the sides open out.
User avatar
By Zagadka
#13681670
Maybe, but there were several different LC-based craft, including scouting and command... Either someone underestimated the effectiveness of defense, or had a cheap design...
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#13681892
During the Dardanelles campaign in WW1 the British landing craft had exits and ramps on the side. The Turkish Machine gunners would sit their sites on the side exits and fire, never needing to aim at individual soldiers because all of them had to pour out of those two areas. Forward facing ramps gives a larger target area and allow for quicker disembarkment. It also has a large psychological factor in its favour: move forward or get shot, compared to side exits where you can wait safely.
By pugsville
#13683110
It's a lot more practical in not letting the water in to lower a ramp to the front were the beach is. Landing a force against serious opposition is WW1 over the top territory no matter how you get out of the boat. The yanks already had the motorized up the beach Buffalo by d-day but was used in the pacific rather than Europe.
By Smilin' Dave
#13683276
Wouldn't it be shallower water to the front of the landing craft? Given troops are weighed down a fair bit and many didn't know how to swim, dropping them in anything remotely too deep could kill them too. Oh, and where ever you hop off, you'll have to move to the front eventually. Only if you have to swim around you'll be exposed longer.

pugsville does make a fair point however, that amphibious tractor-type vehicles were a better option.
User avatar
By MB.
#13687164
LCVPs are cheap (wood) and can be mass produced for huge infantry invasions quickly. The armored front-loading ramp provides some protection and expedites loading unloading. Unlike amtracs they can return to their troopships quickly. Indeed, these were their major advantages in sustained operations.

Oh, and where ever you hop off, you'll have to move to the front eventually


Was waiting for the V.D. Hanson line. ;)

but I can't imagine how many soldiers just never had a chance in hell once that ramp went down. It is like walking in a straight line into enemy fire.


This really depends on the opposition to the landing and the dispersal of the forces at the beaches. Operation Dragoon went off flawlessly in comparison to Operation Neptune (specifically the airborne landings and the landings at the Omaha sector).
User avatar
By MB.
#13687844
His Westren Way of War is basically arguing the thesis that, contrary to the claims of J. Keegan, when the two lines of spear wielding infantry collided they actaully did fight eachother to the death. Keegan (in the Face of Battle) had proposed that actaully one line invariably buckles moments before the collision. VD Hanson's argument was that because the greeks in the phalanx were constantly pushing forward against the hoplites in front of them with their shields, the only way out of the phalanx was fight or death.
Last edited by MB. on 19 Apr 2011 20:17, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By MB.
#13688650
Actually Hanson uses evidence from pike warfare to make his case. He presents several examples where commenters refer to the first wave of pikemen annihilating each other entirely in the initial collision. Hanson argues that pike warfare was necessarily even more brutal than phalanx warfare because the pikemen weren't wearing heavy armour (or at least, not as heavy as the hoplite armour + shield)

It's not like the rear ranks are entirely safe from being stabbed with a spear/pike/long stick so just how much are they going to push?


They are fairly safe: the pike can only penetrate up to about the fourth row or so (or so Hanson argued). Based on that other thread we had going about pike formations, if indeed the pikemen immediately entangled their weapons, those in the rear could push with essentially impunity, as the pikes as the front would have been largely mangled in the initial collision. Also, Hanson (quoting Keegan) argues that the piles of bodies from the dead first rows would have protected the rear somewhat.

All that said, Hansons' point wasn't that the phalanxs fought to annihilation it was that they actaully collided with each-other and those in the phalanx had no choice but to fight to death, until one side was clearly victorious. Obviously, once the it was clear that one side was losing, and if the hoplites in the phalanx could determine this, then the phalanx would break (as happened at Delium etc).
Last edited by MB. on 20 Apr 2011 19:59, edited 1 time in total.
By Rilzik
#13688682
I don't know anything about the subject, but I would imagine that if they opened from the rear, soldiers wouldn't want to leave cover. Open it from the front and they have a incentive to start running their asses off.

So then the question would be do more men die getting off the boat or in possibly delaying an organized assault of your own.

For those who apparently did not see this post pro[…]

A new film has been released destroying the offic[…]

Sounds like perfect organized crime material ex[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]