[Steven P Allen]

Does anybody know of a list of vehicles and artillery pieces (WWII) which would fit in the well deck of an LCVP?

I know that I can compare dimensions with specs on the various vehicles, but I am hoping to find a list that will keep me from having to look up all the data from 83 separate sources.

[aevans]

I wonder if there is a list. Most logistics planning factors are expressed in weight/cube capacity, with some example of more common loads, like men or utility vehicles. And practice was often something else entirely from what one could theoretically do. For example, you could probably squeeze a 105 mm howitzer into an LCVP, but that would separate it from its prime mover. In practice they landed field artillery with LCMs or LCTs.

[shep854]

According to Wiki, the cargo compartment was 7'10" wide at the gunwale, 7'5" at deck level and 17'3" long at deck level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LCVP-plan.gif

This post has been edited by shep854: 15 May 2009 - 2059 PM

[R011]

A Ford Fiesta will fit. :lol:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=h_KIqdS1SO0

Starting at 08:03.

[Chris Werb]

aevans, on Fri 15 May 2009 1907, said:

In practice they landed field artillery with LCMs or LCTs.

It was sometimes done with DUKWs and LVT-4s. I suspect the DUKW use would have been river crossings though.

[shep854]

Chris Werb, on Sat 16 May 2009 0748, said:

It was sometimes done with DUKWs and LVT-4s. I suspect the DUKW use would have been river crossings though.

Of course, some sort of hoist assembly was needed at the destination-for the 'duck' anyway.

I've seen a photo of a jeep on an LCVP. According to Wiki, the boat could handle a 3-ton vehicle or around 4 tons of bulk cargo. I suppose the height of CG accounts for the difference.

This post has been edited by shep854: 16 May 2009 - 0816 AM

[DougRichards]

It would seem that the carrying capacity, in terms of vehicles / cargo, was very similar to the LVT4. The LVT4 could and did on occaision carry universal carriers, and the LCVP cargo area was certainly wide enough for a carrier. The LVT4 was too small for a 4X4 3/4 ton, but this should have been within the capabilities of a LCVP, otherwise the only vehicles capable of being carried would have been jeeps and motorcycles.

As to the ability to carry artillery, a 75mm Howitzer M1 on carriage M8 would have been able to be carried, but combined length of a jeep and piece may have been problematic. For the same reason landing a jeep and 57mm would have been difficult, but maybe not impossible if the trails are somehow hauled over the jeep.

[Delta tank 6]

Chris Werb, on Sat 16 May 2009 0848, said:

It was sometimes done with DUKWs and LVT-4s. I suspect the DUKW use would have been river crossings though.

DUKWs were used on D-Day 6 June 44 to carry towed 105mm howitzers to the beach, but I think most were swamped due to the waves that morning. Yes they did have a little crane to lift them up and put them on the ground.

Mike

[aevans]

Chris Werb, on Sat 16 May 2009 1248, said:

It was sometimes done with DUKWs and LVT-4s. I suspect the DUKW use would have been river crossings though.

They used DUKWs at Iwo Jima too, but AFIAK only for 75 mm pack howitzers.

[DougRichards]

aevans, on Sun 17 May 2009 1717, said:

They used DUKWs at Iwo Jima too, but AFIAK only for 75 mm pack howitzers.

I understand that 25pdrs were also strapped to DUKWs, whilst 17pdrs crossed rivers on the back, so to speak, of LVTs.

In terms of getting field artillery ashore via landing craft, wouldn't it be a matter of doctrine that for the first few waves, or even the first day or two, artillery support would be provided by destroyers and cruisers, and other extemporised fire support, such as LCS and medium tanks landed by LCM. The field artillery could come ashore at a more leisurely pace. In the Pacific however, there may have been greater value in landing 75mm pak howitzers to provide heavier direct fire support than that available from 37mm AT guns. Indirect could come from 81mm mortars, which would be more easily landed than 105mm howitzers.

[shep854]

^
^
^
That's also where the LVT(H) came in. The WWII originals had 75mm how, later ones had 105mm how.

[DougRichards]

shep854, on Mon 18 May 2009 1220, said:

^
^
^
That's also where the LVT(H) came in. The WWII originals had 75mm how, later ones had 105mm how.

It could be argued that the original had 37mm, in a turret like that of the M3 Light, the next generation had a turret like that of the HMC M8 with the 75mm pack. There were attempted to put into service an LVT with a M24 turret. but was a bit top heavy.

Thr interesting part about these was that the LVT (A) - with the 75mm was considered to be underarmed, as it only had a .50cal for close in defence, in comaprison with the 37mm armed LVT (A)-1, which had two machine gun tubs in the rear hull as well as a MMG coax. Later LVT(A)-4 had two .30 in the turret rear as well as another MG in the hull front for the assistant driver to use.

The Squadrom book ahs two photos of LVT 4 carrying 105mm howitzers, one in the cargo hold, the other above the cargo hold. The one in the hold appears to have had its shield removed. This would indicate that even if it had to have its shield removed a 105mm howitzer would be able to be carried by a LCVP, manhandling it up a sandy beach would be something else again.

[shep854]

Doug, you're right. I thought I remembered a photo of an LVT with a 37mm turret, but I wasn't sure that I was getting memories mixed up.

[Ol Paint]

No help to Steven P Allen... :)
75mm being offloaded: http://commons.wikim...tzer-tinian.jpg
DUKW with 105mm: http://news.webshots...065172104QthqWF
Jeep being offloaded: http://www.ibiblio.o...Tinian-p135.jpg
I've also seen a picture of two DUKWs lashed together to carry a P-38, but my Google-fu isn't turning up any worthwhile results.

Off-topic even further: http://www.ibiblio.o...Tinian-p136.jpg Japanese amphibious truck.

Douglas