LVT, LVT(A), AMTRAC, and Alligator

Weaver · March 14, 2020, 11:30:22 AM

Quote from: Old Wombat on March 14, 2020, 10:36:40 AM
The LVT(A)-4 is, basically, a roofed LVT-4.

No it isn't: the nomenclature is confusing.

The LVT-2 had a rear-mounted engine. The only part higher than the track guards was the drivers' hood.
The LVT-4 had a front-mounted engine and a rear ramp. The whole side was built up to drivers' hood level at the outside edge of the track guards.

An LVT(A)-1 was an LVT-2 with an M3 tank turret (37mm gun). The middle part of the hull roof was built up to drivers' hood level.
An LVT(A)-2 was an LVT-2 with extra armour and MG shields.
An LVT(A)-3 was an LVT-4 with extra armour fitted at the factory. It wasn't put into production 'cos field add-on armour kits were available.
An LVT(A)-4 was an LVT-2 with an M8 turret (75mm gun).
An LVT(A)-5 was an LVT(A)-4 with a stabiliser for the gun.

There was never an LVT-4 (front engine, rear ramp) with a turret. Which is why I want to build one...

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Vehicle_Tracked#LVT(A)-1_(1942)

jcf · March 14, 2020, 03:08:06 PM

Quote from: Weaver on March 14, 2020, 11:30:22 AM

There was never an LVT-4 (front engine, rear ramp) with a turret. Which is why I want to build one...

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Vehicle_Tracked#LVT(A)-1_(1942)

The closest being the French Gators with a Bofors.

Weaver · March 14, 2020, 05:41:09 PM

Cheers Jon.

Just to be clear, the 40mm guns were mounted on a pedestal in an open-topped LVT-4, not on a roof:

The French also had LVT(A)-4s in Indo-China, which had two additional MG mounts on the edge of the turret and a splendidly Heath Robinson sunshield:

You can see in the latter picture the differences between the LVT(A)-4 and LVT-4 upper hulls.

PR19_Kit · March 14, 2020, 08:36:23 PM

Which version of these fascinating vehicles is the Airfx kit?

One of those was the only AFV kit I ever built for myself, and I put a turret and a roof on it too.

Weaver · March 14, 2020, 09:22:31 PM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 14, 2020, 08:36:23 PM
Which version of these fascinating vehicles is the Airfx kit?

One of those was the only AFV kit I ever built for myself, and I put a turret and a roof on it too.

The Airfix kit is an LVT-4 in the configuration used by the British Army to cross the Rhine, with a 20mm Polsten cannon at the front, plus two MGs. That gun fit wasn't universal: I've read that some crews wern't fans of the 20mm and managed to 'lose' it over the side at the earliest opportunity. The bow MG was sometimes also removed and it's opening blanked off.

I'm not the expert on the fine detail of these, but one thing I notice the Airfix kit lacking is the water deflector grids behind the tracks. These improved propulsive efficiency in the water and were an almost universal fitment after they were invented. Also, if the ramp is down, it should have two cables running from the top corners of it to the top of the hull on each side.

Somebody on ebay is selling a resin 20mm cannon for the Airfix kit which is much nicer than the OOB one.

Weaver · March 14, 2020, 09:24:07 PM

Pic of a late LVT(A)-5. This is the one with the powered, stabilised (and apparently roofed) turret and an extended bow for more buoyancy. The driver's station looks to have better vision too:

rickshaw · March 15, 2020, 12:38:25 AM

The Australian Army at the end of WWII operated a regiment of LVTs. These vehicles served with the 15th Northern Rivers Lancers, a CMF unit, which in 1954 has one of the worst peacetime military disasters when on Exercise they took 8 vehicles out to sea and lost the lot of them.

LVTs enter the water at Stockton, NSW.

The 1954 Stockton Bight military disaster

PR19_Kit · March 15, 2020, 06:24:26 AM

That link to the Stockton Bight disaster is fascinating, good post Brian.

NARSES2 · March 15, 2020, 06:57:54 AM

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on March 14, 2020, 03:08:06 PM

That carpet laying one is fascinating, obvious when you think about it, but none the less fascinating.

So could we have an LVT bridgelayer or flail ?

PR19_Kit · March 15, 2020, 07:43:00 AM

Quote from: NARSES2 on March 15, 2020, 06:57:54 AM

So could we have an LVT bridgelayer or flail ?

Would it have enough buoyancy for all that extra weight though?

NARSES2 · March 15, 2020, 07:58:35 AM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 15, 2020, 07:43:00 AM
Quote from: NARSES2 on March 15, 2020, 06:57:54 AM

So could we have an LVT bridgelayer or flail ?

Would it have enough buoyancy for all that extra weight though?

Probably not, but what was the bridging version of the Churchill that simply "lay" in the gap to be crossed and the rest drove over it ? You could avoid all that heavy bridging gear the bridgelayer used that way. And maybe a mine plough rather than flail ?

Weaver · March 15, 2020, 09:02:52 AM

I think there were engineer versions, both 'factory' and field-improvised, but I don't know the details.

A fascine carrier would work if you could use light, large-diameter tubes for the fascine and carry them flat on a pair of rails, rather than in a tall bundle which would make the vehicle top-heavy in the water. These days I'd say use plastic pipe, but I'm not sure what was available in WWII.

The problem with a flail is that the basic hull isn't armoured at all and even the applique armour kits are only 6-13mm, so it might end up taking damage from the mines that it explodes.

A steel bridgelayer would not just have buoyancy problems, it would also have balance problems in the water if it raised the CofG too much. I wonder how hard it would be to make a buoyant, wheeled bridge, tow it ashore and then push it into position? Maybe the vehicle would need a lot more power, but that can be done if it doesn't have to carry troops. The city of Buffalo (appropriately enough!) used to have seven LVT-4s which they used for icebreaking on waterways into the 21st century (they were auctioned off in 2016). These had the original radial engine replaced by a Continental inline diesel engine fitted in the back of the troop compartment. It still looks a bit lost and still left quite a bit of cargo space in the middle, So I imagine that if you really set about installing some horsepower, you could get an absolute beast in there.

This is the auction for the Buffalo icebreakers:
https://www.auctionsinternational.com/auction/7629/item/1944-45-fmc-lvt-4-landing-amphibious-vehicle-tracked-e28a-46982

Weaver · March 15, 2020, 09:23:20 AM

This is an interesting pic. it's another of the City of Buffalo ones, but it's one of the spares hulks rather than a runner. What it shows is the way that the upper drivers' cabin is made up of separate panels that can be removed. You might easily imagine putting window glass in these to make a more civilian-style vehicle. It also feeds nicely into an idea I had for a Gerry-Anderson UFO reboot, where they use modified LVT-4s as the S.H.A.D.O. mobiles.

jcf · March 15, 2020, 10:59:42 AM

Quote from: Weaver on March 14, 2020, 05:41:09 PM
Cheers Jon.
Just to be clear, the 40mm guns were mounted on a pedestal in an open-topped LVT-4, not on a roof:

Yes Harold, I know, that's why I said closest to.

Weaver · March 15, 2020, 11:02:27 AM

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on March 15, 2020, 10:59:42 AM
Quote from: Weaver on March 14, 2020, 05:41:09 PM
Cheers Jon.
Just to be clear, the 40mm guns were mounted on a pedestal in an open-topped LVT-4, not on a roof:

Yes Harold, I know, that's why I said closest to.

Yes Jon, I know you know, but I was making it clear for other people who may only have seen the side profile you posted...