This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
By Robert D. Smith
TV r-r''- i
The U.S. Marine Corps is currently acquiring a number of air cushion landing craft (LCAC) for use in amphibious assault operations. The chief advantages of the LCAC are its superior speed and its ability to travel over land. The primary disadvantage is its vulnerability. Anyone who has ever seen an LCAC cannot help but notice the two huge push propellers extending high above the rear of the craft. This high profile, along with the lack of heavy armor, makes the LCAC a very likely target.
A vulnerability study of the LCAC was done by the Ballistic Research Laboratory, which concluded that the LCAC was relatively invulnerable to small-arms fire and artillery fragments. The study also stated that only direct hits by large explosive warheads greater than 30 mm would pose a threat to the LCAC components.
A number of potential enemy countries not only have small arms and artillery but also weapons with explosive warheads greater than 30 mm. The Soviet Union has supplied many countries with antitank guided missiles such as the RPG-7, AT-3 SAGGER, AT-4 SPIGOT, and AT-5 Spandrel. These missiles have ranges of 500 to 4,000 meters and the capability of penetrating up to 500 mm of tank armor. It is very likely that these weapons will be used against the LCAC.
The vulnerability of the LCAC and other landing craft to all kinds of enemy fire could be reduced with the use of a piece of equipment on the verge of being retired—the Xenon tank searchlight currently mounted on the M60 series of tanks.
High-intensity Xenon tank searchlights can reduce the vulnerability of an LCAC or any other landing craft because any attempt to look at one of these searchlights for even short periods can result in temporary blindness; there is also a possibility of permanent eye damage. They can be thought of as a “quasi-offensive” weapon.
Since most antitank guided missiles are optically guided, the soldiers firing these weapons are vulnerable to eye damage from high-intensity searchlights— especially because of the optical magnification of the weapon sights and the relatively long times required to guide the missiles to the target. Infantry troops firing small arms and forward artillery observers are also at risk of being blinded by the searchlights.
LCACs and accompanying landing craft could be equipped with a bank ot two or more Xenon tank searchlights positioned on the front of the craft, aimed, at various angles, toward the shore. The broad-beam option on the searchlights could be used to cover a larger area of the landing zone.
During a landing, if there were no resistance there would be no need to turn on the lights. However, if the landing craft came under fire, the element of surprise would be gone and all of the lights would be turned on immediately. This would be done during day or night operations, because the searchlights are equally effective day or night due to their tremendous candlepower. Imagine the effect that hundreds of searchlights would have on
I.S. NAVY (T EDWARDS)
The LCAC is fast and can travel over land—and makes a good target. High-intensity Xenon tank searchlights mounted on the LCAC could reduce its vulnerability.
an enemy, physically and psychologically. The natural motion of the sea and the movement of the craft themselves would create a crisscross pattern of lights Hashing all over the landing zone in an unpredictable pattern.
The U.S. Marine Corps is planning on retiring its current fleet of M60A1 tanks and replacing them with M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks. The searchlights could be removed from any tanks being mothballed, and mounted on LCACs and other landing craft. Effectiveness would be greatly enhanced at very little additional cost.
Mr. Smith is currently working as a mathematician/ analyst for the U.S. Naval Coastal Systems Center in Panama City. Florida. He is involved in the testing of the new Navy mine-hunting sonar AN/SQQ-32. Previously, he worked for the U.S. Army as an operations research analyst, and for the SHAPE Technical Centre in The Hague, the Netherlands, in antitank warfare.
Mobile Care on the Battlefield
Planners on the modern battlefield can no longer think in terms of established front and rear areas. Major offensives will most likely be the exception, not the rule. “Brushfire” wars, with skirmishes instead of battles, hit-and-run attacks against U.S. forces or their allies, insurgencies and revolutions, appear to be
By Lieutenant Michael D. Keaton, U.S. Navy
the present prevailing threat. Training to operate against guerrillas of an unspecified force strength continues to challenge leaders and planners.
Proceedings / September 1990