Are there any currently being used in the army.

We had the DUKW in WWII, correct?

Then there was some kind of thing in Vietnam, or was that just marines?

I'm specifically talking army and just curious.  Why?  Just out of curiousity.  I know the marines have some kind of Amphibious vehicle now, what's that called?  Does the army use it too?

And for anyone that is interested, I've got to ride in the Dukw's a couple of times in Wisconsin Dells.  They have a company up there that puts on tours with them.  It's awesome!!!!!!!

The army has no amphibious vehicals that I know of.

However they have some of the best bridge builders around and they use lots of boats and barges.

Interesting!

Yes the Army had DUKWs during WWII and they could theoretically drive into the water start up their props cross the river or body of water and cross to the other side drive right out.  I know i read a few instances where the 101st used them while moving around Germany towards the end of WWII.  And I believe I remember that some units used them while trying to cross the Rine river.

Of course if you are talking about amphibious  landing vehicles the US had the LC series aka the "Higgins Boats"

http://www.sproe.com/l/landing-craft.html

And I even remember reading about a few small operations where troops were transported by a small boat with a (?) 600 HP outboard engine.   All that is just some of the US craft I can remember.  The Germans had their own line of vehicles that were equipped for amphibious assault.

The LARC 5/15/60 were used by the Army until the early 1990s.


The LARC-V (Pictured) is still used by Navy Beach Masters and Under Water Construction Teams...the hulls are really old and replacement parts are gone. The few left are kept running by scavenging parts from other hulls (CBC Gulfport has over 30 hulls that are stripped for parts)


I used to drive the LARC-V when I was at BMU1. They're pretty cool vehicles...they are capable of 30 mph on land and about 5 knots in the water. They were pigs to work on though, we had 22 LARC-Vs (only 10 were kept running) and half of them had been in Viet Nam.


ETA: No replacement is in the works so I expect they'll all be gone soon. It's too bad because we used the hell out of them when doing LCU off loads over the beach.

Those are cool and I've never seen them.  Thank you!!!!

So nothing currently in the inventory.  To me that seems odd.

That's because the possibility of an over the beach landing for the Army has shrunk to near zero, and only the Marines have retained a minimal over the beach capability.

the Army might need a causeway and IIRC there are small pusher boats on the LASH ships and similar that cold put together a causeway.  But all the Army equipment coming in by sea is coming in on big ships that need piers to offload too.  Any small landing that needs small stuff is almost certainly going to be done by the Marines.  Big stuff can't go over the beach.

Quoted: I know i read a few instances where the 101st used them while moving around Germany towards the end of WWII.

Band of Brothers has at least 1 in a scene of them driving down a road

The Army has some ship-to-shore capability...

But NO true amphib capablity (eg vehicles like the USMC AMTRAK, AAV, or LAV-25 (the Stryker cannot swim)....

The MARINES also have ship-to-shore capable of moving some very big things (Like M1 Abrams 'BIG')....

If I remember, the M113 had the capability to swim.  I know they were still in use when I retired 10 years ago, not not sure if they are still in use.

Can't remember if the the M2/3 had the capability.  Never knew about the Stryker.

It's been said the Army has more aircraft then the Air Force and more boats then the navy.  Seems that some would be amphibious.

The "Army's navy" is not heard of much, but suprisingly does a great deal of work.  The Army actually has the responsibility of moving it's logistics over the shore (LOTS) and that also includes port operations.  When the military takes over a port, like Basra in Iraq, the Army is responsible for running it.  There are specialized Army units that are specifically designed to operate ports in a joint enviroment.  

To support the LOTS requirement, the Army has a large number of smaller vessels.  Virtually all of them in use today are Navy designs, and bought piggy-back on Navy procurment.  The Army's LOTS requirement is basically to be able to unload a ship, and move the logistics over the shore.  It is not an "amphibious assault" requirment, but simply the movement of supplies over the beach to where ground transport takes it further inland.  Additionally, there is a smaller requirement to be able to move supplies up inland water ways in regions that have usable waterways and unusable roads.  

The DUKW was designed when the Army had a requirement for amphibious assault.  That no longer exists.  One thig the DUKW's did quite well though was LOTS.  They would act as small lighters and load directly from the ship off-shore, and drive right up on shore to deliver and repeat.  Due to the small capacity (it was a 2.5 ton truck), it wasn't the greatest for this job, but it's abilty to do the job without other facilities made up for it.

Replacements were more purpose designed as amphibious lighters.  The LARC's, etc. kinda sucked as trucks due to maintenance issues, but had a larger capacity and therefore a higher through-put speed.  In the 1980's the Army bought LACV's which were hovercraft that could carry 30 tons.  They were smaller than the LCACs used by the Navy to move the USMC around.  The LACV's were fast and fairly capable, and could really do a good job at LOTS.  The Army never had much more than 30 or so and got rid of them in the 90's.  When you buy small numbers of things, cost is a killer in unit cost and replacement parts.  The LACV's were neat, but other developments made them not as cost effective.

You have to remember that most of the ships up until then were older style freighters that used cranes to off-load over the side.  The Military Sealift Command had gone to great lengths to improve the fleet though and now nearly all of them are Ro-ro, or roll-on-roll off, types.  They have built in hatches and ramps to unload rapidly on a pier.  The latest Army ship, which are TSVs, are basically modified high-speed commercial, ocean-going ferries.  The two available test vessels of this design (A Navy HSV and an Army TSV) moved one helluva lot of stuff during OIF.  While no one was paying much attention to it, those two vessels really moved far more equipment than any other combination and really proved the concept.

The system as it exists now is to use a portable pier to offload the ro-ro ships, which just drive the stuff directly off the ship and wherever it needs to go.  Older style ships, and ships waiting on pier space can off-load the old fashion way into Army lighters, who then move the supplies to a crane that off-loads them.  Since many of these lighters are actually the same landing craft the Navy uses, there is a limited capabilty to off-load directly on-shore, but onward movement becomes a pretty big problem.

In typical Army fashion, the "skipper" of any vessel is a Warrant Officer.  While a Commisioned Officer commands the actual Transportation unit, the commanding officer of any large vessel enough is a Warrant Officer.  We always called them "boat Warrants".  Small vessels are run by NCO's just like the Navy does.  Several Navy NCOs that got cut from the Navy went "blue to green" and became Warrant Officers in the Army as skippers of bigger boats.  Most of the Army's watercraft fall under the Transportation Corps.  By all accounts TC does a very good job managing them all and it's become a pretty interesting niche in the Army really.  Few people know they exist, fewer still know any details, and they pretty much operate in their own little world away from any of the BS that plauges most Army units and many Navy ones.  There doesn't seem to be any problem with the Navy, and they get 110% support from the Navy when required, but they almost always are working with them in a joint enviroment anyway, so it's pretty much a "purple" deal there.

There is no amphibious requirement for Army vehicles.  They stopped swimming M113's due to cost and safety issues.  The only thing amphibious would be something left over from "back in the day".  The abililty to swim a vehicle adds all sorts of cost issues in design, complexity and maintenance.  Due to the fact that most vehicles really suck at it, the viability of an opposed river crossing is nil.  If you aren't going to cross opposed, you can pretty much build a bridge.  Swimming and snorkeling aren't really what they are cracked up to be.  There's very serious issues with either that make it questionable.

WOW, thanks Ross.   That's quite the right up.  So do the army guys on the boats were blue?

Quoted: WOW, thanks Ross.   That's quite the right up.  So do the army guys on the boats were blue?

Some are. I had several Petty Officers that were looking into it. Their jobs in the Navy were overmanned, so their chances at advancement were near nil. They ended up advancing anyway, which was to the Navy's benefit. They were very good people.

RE Basra.
I'm not sure about Basra, but I know Um Qasr was operated by the Brits.

Ash Shuaiba, Kuwait was controlled by the Army. The USCG did some odd jobs around the port. The USNR and USCG provided seaward security.

I've seen Army LCUs do all sorts of odd jobs from loading equipment at a Navy base to be delivered as aid to South American countries to acting as port security boats.

TSV and HSV are really good hulls. I do believe HSV's lease is up soon. The Navy is contracting to build the JHSV, which as I understand it, is a joint Army/Navy program.

Quoted: RE Basra. I'm not sure about Basra, but I know Um Qasr was operated by the Brits. Ash Shuaiba, Kuwait was controlled by the Army. The USCG did some odd jobs around the port. The USNR and USCG provided seaward security. I've seen Army LCUs do all sorts of odd jobs from loading equipment at a Navy base to be delivered as aid to South American countries to acting as port security boats. TSV and HSV are really good hulls. I do believe HSV's lease is up soon. The Navy is contracting to build the JHSV, which as I understand it, is a joint Army/Navy program.

Interesting.  I meant to say "wear" though.

I have been transported on an Army LCU before. Very interesting ship. Was when I was
in the Marines of all things. As for the DUKW refference, if you read Rick Adkinsons
"The Day of Battle" you will find that the DUKW was used quite extensivly during the
invasion of Sicily and throughout the Italian campaign.

Because I love Amphib OPs....Here are some pictures of the some of our ship to shore tools:

LCAC



Barge Ferry (Motorized Causeway)



LCU (I'm riding on the LARC-V on the bow of the LCU)



Pier Side offload at the Port of Al-Shuaiba, Kuwait



Elevated Causeway

OK, I thought what I rode in was an LCU but it was bigger than what is pictured above.
We had several Hummve's (12 or more) on the deck of it and it had a gallie and
sleeping quarters on it as well. (this was well over a decade ago so I cant really
remember the name of it.)

Quoted: OK, I thought what I rode in was an LCU but it was bigger than what is pictured above. We had several Hummve's (12 or more) on the deck of it and it had a gallie and sleeping quarters on it as well. (this was well over a decade ago so I cant really remember the name of it.)

Army LCUs are pretty big.

Quoted: OK, I thought what I rode in was an LCU but it was bigger than what is pictured above. We had several Hummve's (12 or more) on the deck of it and it had a gallie and sleeping quarters on it as well. (this was well over a decade ago so I cant really remember the name of it.)

The 1633 LCU is a 1627 Class LCU....It's 135 feet long and it can carry 180 tons of cargo or 400 troops. The 1633 pictured is loaded with 1 LARC-V, 1 D-7 dozer, 1 CAT loader, 1 5ton 6x6 and 1 HMMWV. It's not loaded to capacity (It carries the advance landing team)...the deck of follow on LCUs will be packed. 12 HMMWVs will easily fit on the deck of a LCU. We've loaded 3 M1 tanks and a M88 on one LCU before.

The LCU Pictured is the 1st LCU that will touch down on the beach, it carries the advance landing party of Beach Masters and Marines. The LARC-V the 1st vehicle to drive off, it's job is to make sure the water depth is shallow enough to offload the rest of the vehicles.

The LCU has a crew of 11. In the conning tower on the starboard side there is a galley and a small head. Below decks there is a berthing area for the crew, engine and machinery spaces.


ETA:....The Army operates the LCU 2000 (Much bigger than the Navy LCU). This might have been what you were on.

For some reason, this is all very fascinating to me!!

Quoted: ETA:....The Army operates the LCU 2000 (Much bigger than the Navy LCU). This might have been what you were on. i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/Seabee_Mech/military/DSC01545.jpg

Yes, that is it.

So you are saying that the ARMY has gotten rid of all their LCM's (Mike Boats)?

Quoted: So you are saying that the ARMY has gotten rid of all their LCM's (Mike Boats)? www.christianbauman.com/lcm8_3.jpg

The Army still uses LCM-8's.  Just like there are Tansportation companies that have medium, heavy and really big assed trucks, there are Transportation companies that have different sized boats.

Quoted: For some reason, this is all very fascinating to me!!

An Army tugboat in Operation Iraqi Freedom:

To prevent Iraqi sabotage, the coalition not only seized oil fields in Iraq, but also used SOF to seize the gulf oil platforms, which required complex and integrated joint operations, including SOF, Navy, Coast Guard, and Army forces. The opening vignette describes how Army watercraft supported the special operations direct action to secure the oil platforms. Additionally, the Army tug Champagne Marne supported these operations.

The Marne, a large tugboat that operated throughout the region, earned the Navy Commendation Medal for its work in clearing derelict vessels from key navigation ways in the North Arabian Sea. On the evening of 21 March, the Marne, captained by Chief Warrant Officer 2 Jay Dehart, led two Navy 1600-class LCUs through the coalition warship screen beyond the most-forward mine sweepers and linked up with the forces that had secured the Mina Al- Bakr oil terminal. Establishing communications with prearranged flashing light signals, the Marne secured a lighterage working platform to the structure at 2309. With 24 Coast Guard security personnel aboard, the Marne then moved on to the Khor Al-Amaya platform to do the same, finishing the work by 0034 on the 22nd. After dropping the security team at the second platform, the crew picked up 22 marines and transported them to one of the Navy LCUs. The Marne completed the troop transfers and returned through the mined waterway, crossing back through the coalition warship screen at 0630 on the 22nd.24

Once the marines and SOF captured the oil wells and gulf oil platforms, the original fires were confirmed as sabotage, albeit an unsophisticated attempt. The wells were rigged with two explosives - the first to destroy the "Christmas tree" rigging and the second to set the oil on fire. The JTFC was unsure if the rigging of the demolitions was so poor because the Iraqis thought they had more time (given the expected 30-day air campaign) or if they were trying to preserve the oil for the future and were only making a token effort. Regardless, of the more than 1,000 oil wells in the south, only nine were set afire, and all were extinguished by the end of April.25



and

In August 2002, the 24th Transportation Battalion soldiers loaded five Landing Craft Utility (LCU) vessels belonging to the 824th Transportation Company (USAR) onto the semi- submersible vessel Tern. They also loaded one large and one small tug assigned to the 10th Battalion and five of their own Landing Craft Mechanized-8 Mike boats. These vessels and associated crews joined the LSV forward. Finally the 24th's 331st Transportation Company (Causeway), the Army's only modular causeway system company, also deployed forward to support offloading equipment over the shore.12

To this mix, the Army added the theater support vessel (TSV) Spearhead. As noted, the Army acquired the TSV as an offshoot of the Army transformation effort and as a possible solution to Army requirements for lift within a theater. The Spearhead and its naval counterpart, the High-Speed Vessel (HSV) X1, Joint Venture, which was commanded by a naval officer and manned by a joint Army-Navy crew, provided first-rate high-speed lift for use in theater to make runs within the gulf and, as required, to the Red Sea and back.13

During OIF, Army watercraft, the TSV, and Army causeways all contributed to the theater efforts in important, if generally unheralded ways. Army watercraft sailed nearly 57,000 miles supporting ship handling, cargo hauling, passenger ferrying, and combat operations, including seizing the gulf oil platforms. The Spearhead sailed 30,000 of those miles, moving what amounted to 1,000 C-130 sorties of cargo. Army units supported 12 separate JLOTS operations and enabled the Marines to close at a single port, thus facilitating their consolidation and movement forward. Although the Army provided support, the Marines have world-class capability of their own and discharged the bulk of their equipment without assistance from 7th Group units. Finally, an Army tugboat helped clear the channel for the first humanitarian assistance supplies to be delivered by the UK cargo vessel Sir Galahad.

The Corps of Engineers also operates boats and amphibs. Combat Engineer bridging units use a number of boats and amphibs such as the Mobile Assault Bridge (MAB). Also the Corps of Engineers is responsible for dredging rivers, canals, harbors etc. in the continental US, and thus operates boats etc.

In the late 1970s, as a platoon leader of Combat Engineers, my vehicle was an M561 Gama Goat, a fully amphibious 6X6 with an articulated body and steerable front/rear wheels. Very amusing. I don't think they are still in service, However. for historical perspective here is some neat info:



Gama Goat Website

You Tube Swimming Gama Goat Video

P.S. Don't try to swim this puppy with that commo hooch in the back, as in the photo above. That would be glug-glug-ploop for sure, then you have to call the Combat Engineers to come fish you out...

Quoted: If I remember, the M113 had the capability to swim.  I know they were still in use when I retired 10 years ago, not not sure if they are still in use.

Current versions of the M113 are too heavy to swim. Same with the current Bradley versions.

I can't offhand think of anything with a current 'swim' rating.

NTM