APC Development and related topics.

[Suhiir]

The new AAV SU (to be introduced in 2019) does in fact have a lower carry cap (due to the replacement of the wooden bench passenger seating by off-the-deck padded ones). But versions prior to that still use pretty much the same passenger seats as they've had since their introduction.

Current plans are to give the AAV SU a carry cap of 18 (17 would require the addition of a 4th vehicle per platoon or the creation of a new set of passenger units).

Part of what I'll be sending you next fall Don.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

According to Headquarters Marine Corps - AAV 3 Crew + 21 Combat Marines. You'll find pages 10 - 11 very interesting in that it defines the current manning and equipment of the Ground Combat Element (GCE) of the USMC that comprises part of a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). Pages 12 -13 Aviation Combat Element (ACE) manning and equipment with Pages 14 - 15 covering same for Logistics.
http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/...Capability.pdf

Further down you'll find data on ground fire support (Mortars etc.) same for air and ammo resources. Units as assigned to current Amphibian ship classes etc. etc. Should keep a couple of you busy for awhile if for nothing else then simple verification. Haven't quite seen anything out here yet to this detail and this current on the USMC in a long while. I just happened to stumble upon in my USMC data search on the AAV.

GAO are number cruncher's they ain't military.

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

There have been a number of equipment changes and upgrades (M1A1, MV-22, etc.) but the basic infantry battalion MEU really hasn't seen any significant changes since the mid 1980's (the addition of the LAI component).

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'm re-posting the video from an earlier post on the AAV-7SU in this thread. If you freeze the frame as the Major gives the tour you'll count 7 Port side & 8 Starboard side seats, leaving you with the following 3 Crew & 15 Combat Marines. Why the change? Allows for the additional protections and 675hp power-plant vice what I believe is currently a 525/or 550hp power-plant (This off the top of my head.)

Also the space allows the SU to carry 3 days worth of supplies vs. current 1 day. Suhiir would have a better handle on this but, it is my understanding all previous and current mods could be outfitted with a center bench to allow for carry of 25 troops. My USMC HQ post said 21 which with outboard benches is doable but, I would think very cramped.

Bottom line...
1) Much better protected.

2) Armament upgrade still being looked at (Primarily some type of ATGW System.).

3) Faster at Sea and on Land it'll be much better at keeping up with armored units. However this is still being evaluated currently.

4) Increased terrain operability (SU is benefiting from the use of modified BRADLEY suspension components and combat endurance as noted above.)

5) Assuming no issues during 10 unit operational evaluation currently ongoing, Low rate production by 2019, fielded by 2023 in service until current estimates run from 2033-2035.

Video again...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKlgq3RDu74
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyAInmP4KMw

Second video (New.) about 22 seconds in, freeze it, verifies my seat count. Note the Hi/Lo seat configuration this allows for the human bodies/seat configurations thus, increasing carry capability.

Been on this for a year now or so.

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

I can't speak for the newer versions ... but in the 70's they were VERY cramped (in fact the center bench seat was rarely used) and the exhaust fumes inside the crew compartment were nearly unbearable. In reality they rarely carried more then about 15-17 passengers ... and one of those is in the vehicle commanders position, which is that hatch opposite the weapons station. The 3rd crewmember was in back with the passengers when there were passengers aboard, otherwise he was in that commanders position getting fresh air!

The main reason for the passenger capability change is the elimination of that center bench (which as I said was rarely used) and those new individual seats vice the bench for passengers.

As to supplies ... really depends how much you want to hang on the outside of the hull (assuming you're not doing a beach landing when anything outside would be waterlogged AND create drag, thus nothing was outside).

But, for game purposes we use the published data because otherwise you'd never get at consensus on anything (speed, armor, range, penetration, ...).

[DRG]

True and it may be possible to lower the SU's CC to closer to spec values and still maintain the existing formation structure and 18 may do the trick without bending the rules very much....BUT.... the current Rifle Plt(Mec) have 60 men using an AAVP7A1/RAM....6 of that is crew for the AAVP7A1/RAM leaving 54 / 3 = 18...the problem is 3 passengers are 13 and that's the main squads... that leaves 5 open seats per vehicle but the mix of added units that have to go in are 2 for the Hvy snipers and the two AT teams....the problem is the M240 MMG Sec is 6 men and 13+6 = 19 .......and that's what makes OOB work "interesting" at times..... trying to fit reality into game reality. If the M240 MMG Sec was broken down to two 3 man teams instead of the single unit it is now things would fit...but we only have 10 slots and they are full..... if this was a company formation we could build a "platoon" with two 3 man teams..but this is a platoon and you cannot put a platoon into a platoon

Fun

.......and if the SU really does only carry 15 then the max number of troops that should be in the platoon is 45 with three vehicles...60 with 4



Don

[Suhiir]

One reason I'd like to keep the carry cap at 19

13-man Rifle Squad + 6-man MMG Section
13-man Rifle Squad + 2-man Sniper Team + 2-man SMAW Team
13-man Rifle Squad + 2-Javelin Team + 2-man SMAW Team
(8 units)

But 18 can work
13-man Rifle Squad + 2-man Sniper Team + 2-man Javelin Team
13-man Rifle Squad + 3-man MMG Team + 2-man SMAW Team
13-man Rifle Squad + 3-man MMG Team + 2-man SMAW Team
(9 units)

17 or less would require a 4 vehicle AAV platoon and they are only 3 typically. But they may need to go to 4 with the reduced carry capacity of the AAV SU.

AND

There's the problem of mechanized/motorized formations ... still limited to 10 slots as well. So 1 for the company command unit, 1 for the company command transport, 3 are the infantry platoons, another 3 their vehicles, 1 for the company mortars, 1 for the mortar transport ... this leaves 0 slots left ... for the FO, TOWs, MPAD ... "bit" of a problem.

[DRG]

10 slots it is and 10 it shall remain forever unless Andy finds a way to re-write the laws of computer science

also, the SU is still in testing phase and in the end they may decide to for with 4 per plt. We can only guess as we are not the ones making those decisions.....but.....if you can only put 15 troops per vehicle and you only have 3 vehicles then you can only have 45 men per platoon....basic arithmetic. The ONLY way to put more in is to increase the vehicle count by one and that's not game reality......that RL reality and game fudging that to allow them to carry more won't fly very far. If there are more troops than capacity then theres a problem with capacity....if we allow an extra 1 or maybe 2 capacity because unit size requires that fudge but the overall troop count is correct but we cannot break down units like RL and put 3 men in one vehicle and 3 in another so we bump up the capacity by 1 or 2....that I can live with but to bump up capacity to carry more troops than reality... not so much............... so artificially increasing CC to 18 or 19 to make platoons bigger than they are in RL is not an option

[Suhiir]

Yep, and this isn't even taking into account the reality that there's only so much volume aboard amphibious landing ships. You can't just add all that many extra vehicles to accommodate a reduced passenger capacity. So either you reduce the size of the units or you reduce the size of the formation (instead of 3x Rifle Companies you make an MEU 2).

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

My job as I see it is to read my "newspapers" and and see what's coming down the pike, or is getting changed, going away and then trying to tie all these up in a way that makes sense and present it with all it's welcome or unwelcome reality. Where we can do it without software limitations constraining us, we should even when it's an inconvenience stay as close to the real world (RW) as possible with the equipment within the game. We owe it to ourselves and the thousands of players who've constantly (And reviewers of.) over the years have commentated on the realism of this wonderful game. Quite frankly, I'd never have bothered if this wasn't the case here as Don found out early when I submitted the "RISE Passive" MBT. The issue would simply boil down to an ammo one in which the tank would only be sandwiched by date between two others for a six month period of time-this was no hard compromise and it saved a slot in a very tight USA OOB.

So now we might have issues with manning on the AAV's I'll just simply say we've had it pretty good for quite awhile because we've had at least on extra rifleman who would've not necessarily in the RW been there because that slot would've been filled by a USN Field Corpsman (Medic) but like the MP's we used to have in the USA OOB they're not relevant to the game (However like the USMC we felt very very lucky to have them on the boats as Independent Corpsman with added RADCON training.) and we move on.

The AAV SU as has been pointed out will probably cause the CORPS to make some kind of adjustment and trust me when I say they will if it's warranted. Of that there's no doubt like any professional military organization would. And as my almost last boat CO always reminded us on SSBN-739G, "Change is a constant." and isn't that what we do out here!?! And besides until we've got until late 2018/2019 if the seating or anything else changes with it.

Maybe we need to remind ourselves of that at times or else why bother. Too much is coming between now and 2026 and the above will never have "rung so true". I thank God this isn't an RPG or Fantasy/Sci Fi game nothing wrong with it mind you but, let's face it those games are a dime a dozen.

I hope especially the younger players out here can appreciate the uniqueness of this game, the work that goes into keeping it relative and realistic as noted above as possible. These are the key factors in making both these games challenging and fun for us.

I would like to walk away from this game in 2026 knowing I did the best I could for it in my own small way and that we were not ever afraid to do the right thing out here for the players.

So let's start with a definition of a word from Merriam-Webster (This is the USA after-all.), then I have found the current guidance from the USMC on all things AAV etc. Did you expect something less here!?!

1) Notional is the word, in this case the first definition below applies though, the Oxford one is somewhat
better.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/notional

2) Organization of the United States Marine Corps MCRP 5-12D Updated on Feb. 2016.
The following document pages might be of some use... 5-5/5-14/5-17/5-27 and 8-2//.
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Pu...RP%205-12D.pdf

3) Everything you wanted to about the AAV-7, how to disembark, setup for beach assault, formation assignment per mission, landing, assaulting, there's just too much fun in this document that I just didn't know what to do with myself!?!
The following document pages might be of some use... Fundamental Section 1/Section 2: 2-6/2-7/Table 3-3 on 3-9/Figure 3-2 on 3-14/Figure 3-5 on 3-24/Combat Load on 6-9/These last reflect PDF page numbers/A-2 PG. 160/F-3 PG. 195/F-4 PG.196/F-5 PG.197/F-6 PG.198/PG.205//
http://www.marines.mil/LinkClick.asp...3d&portalid=59

Now I really hope no one asks "But what about the AAV-SU?"
well I'm not going there.

Gotta work later today the "Red Man" always keeps me fired up for a couple of days after.

With anything in life "You ain't tryin, if you ain't tryin." and I've obliviously lived in the South too long now!?!

Have a good weekend!!

Regards,
Pat