Army sailor: what could be more absurd?

33
Army sailor: what could be more absurd?

“Army sailor” – this term sounds quite absurd, doesn’t it? Like the roof of a psychiatric clinic being torn off, about the same. But in reality this is exactly the case: the US Army has its own fleet, in which army sailors serve, not military personnel.

Strange, isn't it?



But this is probably one of the most unusual facts about the US Army, which is that it has its own navy. The US Army maintains more than 100 ships designed to move tanks, infantry and other ground forces. That is, the Army Navy ensures that lakes, rivers and even oceans are not significant obstacles for the US Army.

The Army, although it has a fleet of mostly unarmed and relatively small ships, is actually one of the largest navies in NATO.

And at the same time the sailors of this fleet call themselves army sailors.

In fact, the US Army fleet is larger than the navies of many NATO countries. Oh no! We will not take for comparison such great maritime powers as Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria and Romania, we will take Portugal.


The Portuguese Navy includes:

– diesel-electric submarines – 2;
– frigates – 5;
– corvettes – 5;
– patrol ships – 5;
– patrol boats – 12;
– landing ship – 1;
– auxiliary ships – 9.

Total - 39, taking into account tankers, training ships and a three-masted sailing ship.

The US Army has more. There are 78 units of sea transport alone, and there are also river/lake tugboats, ferries and pontoons, which are also part of this family. In reality, not every river like the Dnieper can be crossed by a pontoon crossing.


War on distant frontiers



It's complicated.

The US Army is considered today (primarily in the US) to be an army on a planetary scale and, in theory, it should be ready to conduct combat operations almost anywhere on the globe. Wars tend to happen where people live, and according to the UN, about forty percent of the world's population lives within 60 miles of a coastline. It doesn't matter on rivers, lakes or seas. He lives - and that’s all. Because without water... Remember the funny song with a lot of meaning?

All of this makes water an important reality for the Army.

Especially for the US Army, with its 67-ton Abrams tanks and 40-ton Bradley infantry fighting vehicles.


Yes, the American military is ill-equipped to cross large bodies of water. Although the service has a variety of bridge equipment capable of constructing temporary bridges over trenches and rivers, water obstacles greater than 300 feet wide are beyond the capabilities of most Army units.

While the Marine Corps has amphibious assault ships and hovercraft from the Navy, the Army handles water issues on its own.

The solution, which has existed since World War II, when American infantrymen had to literally drink the waters of European rivers and streams, is to give the army its own miniature fleet.

Army Watercraft Systems (AWS) exist to transform bodies of water from obstacles into opportunities, allowing the Army to cross water obstacles that the enemy may consider impassable.

The Army fleet has a total of 132 vessels, including frigate-sized logistics vessels, tank-capable landing craft and tugboats.

US Army Navy



The majority of the army fleet consists of transport vessels. The largest of these are the eight General Frank S. Besson-class logistics support vessels (LSVs).


At 83 meters long and displacing 4 tons, each is the size of a Navy frigate. Each LSV can transport up to 000 tonnes over a distance of up to 2 km at a speed of 000 knots. This load is equivalent to 6 M500 Abrams main battle tanks or 12 21-foot shipping containers.


A Japanese combat vehicle is unloaded from a US Army landing craft (LCU) at Commander Fleet Activities Sasebo (CFAS), September 27, 2021.

Next in line are the Army's Landing Craft Support Vessels (LCUs).


LCU-2000 allows the Army to move troops and equipment to areas with damaged port infrastructure or even destroyed port facilities, as well as along beaches. Each of the 31 LCU-2000s is 53 meters long and has a total displacement of 1 tons. The LCU-087 can transport up to 2000 tons of cargo at a speed of 170 knots over a distance of up to 11 miles.

At one point, LCU-2000s could carry up to three tanks, but the increasing weight of the M1A2 Abrams tank likely means the vessels can only carry two tanks.

Another new Maneuver Support Vessel (Light) or MSV(L) will replace the older Vietnam-era LCM-8 (Landing Craft Mechanized 8 or Mike Boat). The Army plans to purchase 36 MSV-Ls, each of which can carry one Abrams tank.


The MSV(L) is 30 meters long and can travel up to 700 km at a speed of 18 knots.

The MSV(L) will be able to carry either one M1A2 Abrams tank, two Stryker armored vehicles, or four Joint Light Tactical Vehicles with trailers.

Finally, the Army has several dozen small vessels designed to act as a link between cargo ships, known as Ro-Ro Cargo or Ro-Ro ships.

The fundamental difference between this type of vessel is horizontal loading/unloading through a folding bow or (usually) stern. This design is called a “ramp” or “ramp”.


Ro-Ro vessels are vessels of varying sizes, up to 700 feet in length, and their draft may not allow them to get close to the shoreline and unload their cargo. In this case, Army tugboats and ferries are ready to build a floating causeway from the ship to the shore, allowing vehicles with tracks and wheels to pass over it.


A German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) truck is transferred from a Ro-Ro vessel to the port of Fredrikstad ahead of the large-scale NATO exercise Trident Juncture in Norway, October 2018.

Army fleet in action



How can the Army use its ships to support its units?

According to renowned American expert Kyle Mizokami, there are many plans for operations using the army's navy.

As an option, we can consider the scenario of an operation in North Korea. According to the scenario, the US Army moves up the Korean Peninsula, including along the coastline, heading towards Pyongyang.

The army, approaching the enemy's capital, encounters particularly fierce resistance. Ships such as the LCU-2000 and MSV-L could load supplies at a South Korean port and then support amphibious assault forces offshore by dropping heavy vehicles and bringing in supplies.

Another scenario: the US Army must fortify the island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea to protect it from... Russian troops who can land troops by helicopters. A pair of Besson-class logistics vessels are transporting a number of Stryker infantry fighting vehicles from the Germany-based 2nd Cavalry Regiment from the port of Kiel to Gotland. The Army operation allows the Army to supply units on the island while the Navy and Marine Corps conduct a separate joint operation as scheduled.

In both scenarios, the Army uses its vessels to support the Army's land warfare mission without duplicating the Marine Corps' amphibious warfare mission.

Mosquito fleet?


One might say so, but the ground forces fleet is larger than it seems. The fleet consists of 132 ships of all types, with a total displacement of about 60 tons. That's 000 percent of a Ford-class carrier, or about six Arleigh Burke-class destroyers by displacement.

A little? Well, how to look at it. In general, it is already impressive in itself that the US Army is capable of moving huge amounts of cargo without coordinating it with the Navy at all.

How does the Army fleet compare to foreign navies?

We compared with Portugal, there is also, for example, Great Britain. With its nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates. Less than a hundred warships on the list.

The US Army's sixty thousand ton displacement is equivalent to the British Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth.


The Army Navy is larger than the entire Royal Navy in terms of number of ships, although this is certainly not an objective metric by which the capabilities of a navy are measured. The Royal Navy is much larger in tonnage, and with its submarines, destroyers, frigates and offshore patrol vessels, it has a clear advantage not only in numbers but also in quality, as the ships carry weapons heavier than the 2-caliber M12,7 machine gun. mm.

What can be said as a result?


It may seem strange that the US Army has more than a hundred transport ships in its arsenal, but an expeditionary army must be able to maneuver on any terrain, including water. Not every country, far from every one, and this applies even to the rich NATO countries, has an army with a navy.

The United States not only has a navy, which has an army - the Marines, but also an army, which has its own fleet. And one should complement the other, at least in theory.
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    27 November 2023 04: 45
    ***
    - “Where we are, there is victory!” ...





    - "Happy Holidays, Marines!" ...
    ***
    1. -3
      27 November 2023 09: 01
      These are not Marines)) These are Marines.

      In general, it’s interesting if we assume in theory that tomorrow the United States will enter the Northern Military District against Ukraine. And the task of landing on the Black Sea coast is set. Ukraine has missiles, mines on water and land, unmanned boats, on the coast - ATGMs and artillery, all available air defense. Let's forget about the Montreux Convention and assume that you can bring anything into the Black Sea, including AUGs. What would the Americans do?
      1. +5
        27 November 2023 11: 44
        The Americans have a competent organization of both the army and navy. If our ground forces had at their disposal military boats and landing craft in adequate quantities, then with the capture of Kherson the Dnieper flotilla would have been created and there would have been no threat of interruption of supply to Kherson through the Dnieper and there would have been no reason to leave Kherson. Although that’s not why they left him.
      2. +4
        27 November 2023 15: 19
        Yes, they would demolish all the air defense, infrastructure, etc. in a couple of weeks and calmly land on the beach
  2. +4
    27 November 2023 04: 51
    It’s terrible, what kind of budget is needed to operate this whole “economy”, maintain it, train specialists. And here’s the Dnieper mentioned in the article. And where are these tactics and equipment? No and never will be, because the enemy has the means to defeat and destroy all of the above in the article.
  3. -4
    27 November 2023 05: 05
    The Portuguese Navy includes:

    – diesel-electric submarines – 2;
    – frigates – 5;
    – corvettes – 5;
    – patrol ships – 5;
    – patrol boats – 12;
    – landing ship – 1;
    – auxiliary ships – 9.

    Total - 39, taking into account tankers, training ships and three-masted sailboat.

    Bark - “Svgrish”, similar to our Soviet “Comrade”. However, the latter, after the collapse of the Union, went to Ukraine, and it “heroically” sawed it off to Germany. Shame and shame.
    1. +4
      27 November 2023 11: 44
      Why the shame and disgrace, they could have chipped in 500 euros in 000. And they would have received the “Comrade” in this form, at least 2003 meters from the water. Where the ship was born, where it was once sunk, then raised, there it is on old age returned to his home - Stralsund..

      I think the ship has a worthy end. By the way, although the barque is already German, if you approach the Rynda, then from the front side, it is clean and scrubbed as it should be - and look on the other side, it’s cast for centuries Comrade 1949. Thanks to the Germans, that the whole country raised money for repairs for the Comrade. The Germans kept the map of Comrade’s voyages. Under the German flag, after Ukraine the ship did not sail anywhere.
      1. -2
        27 November 2023 21: 50
        Let me remind you that we got Comrade as part of reparations. If on the fingers, then they paid for it with blood. His classmates, including Sagrish, walk the seas. Russia retained its training Barks (Sedov and Kruzenshtern). Ukraine - no. By the way, in the register of the German fleet, the old name Gorch Fock was returned to Comrade.
        In fact, the Germans, when collecting money for Comrade, did not do it for the sake of you and me, but in the name of revenge over us. Hence the legs (or rather caterpillars) of leopards.
  4. +3
    27 November 2023 05: 39
    Oooh, in terms of the excitement of the Japanese army sailors during the Second World War, there is simply no equal!

    In general, it is already impressive in itself that the US Army is capable of moving huge amounts of cargo without coordinating it with the Navy at all.

    Before the first sunken...
    1. +3
      27 November 2023 15: 29
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Oooh, in terms of the excitement of the Japanese army sailors during the Second World War, there is simply no equal!

      There are some - the same US Army men. smile
      During WWII, the US Army fleet numbered about 130 (one hundred and thirty thousand) pennants. Of these, more than 000 ships had a gross tonnage of more than 1600 grt. Plus small transports, mines (army coastal defense), tugs, etc. The backbone of the army's fleet consisted of more than 1000 landing craft and 88 barges and pontoons.
  5. +7
    27 November 2023 06: 51
    “Army sailor” – this term sounds quite absurd, doesn’t it?

    For me, it’s no more absurd than the “marine corps”.
    Matter of habit. wink
  6. 0
    27 November 2023 07: 23
    The Marine Corps must remain one of the most elite branches of the military due to its great demands and enormous risks. And the best of the best must serve in it.
    In the United States, the Marine Corps remains one of the most prestigious branches of the military. No wonder their motto is: The Few. The Proud. (We are few, but we are proud).
    Happy holiday to all Marines.
    1. +2
      27 November 2023 15: 33
      Quote: Glock-17
      In the United States, the Marine Corps remains one of the most prestigious branches of the military.

      And, until recently, one of the poorest and most poorly armed. Maybe things will change after the reform, but before it, the level of poverty in the Marine Corps was such that to maintain the combat readiness of their Harriers, the Marines planned to purchase decommissioned British vehicles for spare parts. I’m not even talking about the saga with the EFV, which ended with the fact that instead of an infantry fighting vehicle, the Marines received an “assault vehicle,” which was a renamed armored personnel carrier from the Vietnam era. smile
  7. -1
    27 November 2023 08: 36
    “Army sailor” – this term sounds quite absurd, doesn’t it?
    Well, if we were speaking in funny terms... You see, this one is not nearly as absurd and funny as “sailor”. Because the sailor is just the staff of the transport platform. Which carries either the army with its equipment, or guns to the shooting site. Serves artillerymen. That's all) No matter what the sailors think to themselves, they are just a carrier.
    Why are there no driver troops? Driver's license? The role is no different! Cab drivers carry weapons and an army to fight on their platforms) And it’s a show-off, a show-off!)) Guys, puff out your cheeks less, it’s too cool to look...
    1. +1
      27 November 2023 11: 38
      Quote: Mikhail3
      Why are there no driver troops? Driver's license? The role is no different! Cab drivers carry weapons and an army to fight on their platforms) And it’s a show-off, a show-off!)) Guys, puff out your cheeks less, it’s too cool to look...


      Dear teacher, write down in your notebook:
      Automobile Troops of the Russian Armed Forces (AV Russian Armed Forces) - a formation (special troops) in the Russian Armed Forces, designed to transport personnel, supply ammunition, fuel, food and other material resources necessary for conducting combat operations, as well as for evacuating the wounded and sick , technology.
      1. +2
        27 November 2023 12: 11
        And what? Are drivers bursting into angry and contemptuous articles because other branches of the military have the audacity to own cars and carry people in them? ) And also, automobile troops. By type of weapon, like tank or infantry. That is, it would make sense to call something “ship troops”. And then the author wouldn’t be able to sarcastically sarcastically, scratching at the exorbitantly inflated ESC, right?)
      2. ada
        0
        30 January 2024 04: 02
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Dear teacher, write down in your notebook:
        Automotive Troops of the Russian Armed Forces (AV Russian Armed Forces) - a formation (special troops) in the Russian Armed Forces, ...

        Is this information from "pedia"?
        1. 0
          30 January 2024 08: 00
          Quote: ada
          Is this information from "pedia"?

          Do you need it from the safe of the Minister of Defense?
          1. ada
            -1
            30 January 2024 09: 51
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Do you need it from the safe of the Minister of Defense?

            No, there are usually no such documents there. winked
            There, in addition to metal cabinets, in connection with the delineation of the order of storage of media, there were indeed a number of safes. I believe that now they are gone and a new storage system is in place.
            I was attracted by the text in the commentary on AB and wondered where this wording came from.
            But maybe you came across an article with material containing specific changes in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and relating to aviation, their abolition, since on mil.ru except https://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/dictionary/details.htm?id=2654 @morfDictionary
            I didn’t find anything descriptive, but this is no longer relevant information, I came across nonsense on Pedia, and in your comment, it’s clear from another “Pedia”, but material similar in “spirit”, albeit with “unification”. Neither one nor the other is obviously true.
            So, no with mother-of-pearl ones? Well, let's look what what
  8. +3
    27 November 2023 09: 44
    The Marine Corps has nothing to do with the US Navy. They have different types of troops. The Navy has its own "infantry" and special forces separate from the Marine Corps.
  9. +2
    27 November 2023 10: 46
    The army's fleet is larger than it seems. The fleet consists of 132 ships of all types

    The author is misleading. There are no “all types” at all. Only transport ships of different types. There are no warships.
    1. 0
      27 November 2023 11: 40
      Quote from solar
      The author is misleading. There are no “all types” at all. Only transport ships of different types. There are no warships.

      To the author, what are the types, what are the classes...
  10. +3
    27 November 2023 12: 09
    Such abundance is impossible both without a powerful economy (and industry), and without powerful demography, because a military man or a sailor does not produce anything, but in a strong economy, their salary should be attractive enough for healthy, strong men with their families (for the most part) they remained in these structures and did not go to the commercial sector.

    The military power of the United States rests on things that are inaccessible to us at the moment - and if issues with industrial capacity can, in principle, be resolved in one generation, issues with a powerful economy in somewhat more than one, then the issue with demographics is two or three generations. Let me remind you that at the moment we have at most 145-150 million people (with new regions, migrants, etc.) according to the official. statistics, of course. And in the USA there are 333 million people, that is, stupidly twice as many, in fact more than twice. Since the American economy is about 10 times larger than ours, it is absolutely normal for it to field two or three of our military personnel with higher salaries and better equipment and technical equipment (in the aggregate and not in individual units and individual models).

    The trouble is that without building up these three pillars (economy-industry-demography), the US’s gap from us will only increase. But what they will spend this gap on is the question. I think that the WTO and especially the WTO have high operational readiness. A large army and effective management are impossible without the functioning of the above “three pillars”, and it is the WTO that allows us to knock the stool out from under all these monstrous large local armies, stupidly collapsing two of them.
    1. ada
      +1
      30 January 2024 05: 23
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      it is the WTO that makes it possible to knock the stool out from under all these monstrous large local armies, stupidly collapsing two of them. ...

      Greetings!
      Well, no, of course, if everything were that simple... . I already wrote to you once (my interpretation of a plot from one fascinating, but very authoritative publication in our environment), that depending on the type (type) of an armed conflict (AC), the theater of military operations (TVD), the conditions of combat operations ( DB) of their type (type) and the methods and techniques of armed struggle themselves (seems to be sufficient), alternately lead in the effectiveness of chemical weapons and nuclear weapons in various designs, including high-tech weapons (controlled, etc.), where this is required . Behind them, at a considerable distance, BO trails, but evil tongues promise to bring it to an unprecedented level of effectiveness, adding selectivity, variability in the type and degree of damage, increasing stability and shelf life, setting an adjustable (programmable) duration of exposure (preservation of its properties) when used or the life/death cycle (self-reproduction).
      Here. It is precisely these toys that are used to “slap” on stools and then... fellow
      Well, I’m still struggling with chemistry, but if the stool flew away from the Amerigs, let’s put it down forever, then we need so many systemic nuclear explosions in the S-AK area that Mother Earth is guaranteed to lose part of the atmosphere and water with a change in geophysical characteristics, noticeable by instruments instrumentally and probably also astrophysical. By the way, evil tongues say that there will be electricity in the outlet even with a global exchange, but not exactly what it was.
  11. +1
    27 November 2023 13: 10
    There's nothing new under the sun. In World War II, Japan surpassed everyone in this regard. There, the army and navy generally fought two different wars. Only the Emperor could somehow bring them into one line. The fleet ordered tanks for itself, and the army discussed the order of their aircraft carriers and cruisers.
    1. +1
      27 November 2023 15: 42
      Quote: Yakut
      In World War II, Japan surpassed everyone in this regard. There, the army and navy generally fought two different wars.

      Moreover, most of all this was mocked by the military of one country, which had an Army Fleet of 130 pennants, army torpedo bombers and topmast carriers, three types of aviation (of which two shared the same decks) and two coastal defenses - the Army and the Navy. Moreover, the army ordered naval caliber guns for their weapons, but of a completely different design. EMNIP, the army even designed the towers for Fort Drum themselves. smile
  12. +1
    27 November 2023 14: 05
    Army sailor: what could be more absurd?

    The only thing more absurd could be an attempt to write something about Army Watercraft by an individual who knows nothing about the issue. The article is a vivid and clear example.
  13. +1
    27 November 2023 15: 35
    “Army sailor” – this term sounds quite absurd, doesn’t it?

    No more absurd than “army aviation” or “army air defense”.
  14. 0
    27 November 2023 18: 54
    The topic of the fierce struggle among themselves for funding the US Army, Navy and Air Force, especially between the first two, which results in attempts to usurp the functions of a competitor and an almost impossible to overcome refusal to cooperate among themselves, has not been disclosed.
  15. 0
    22 December 2023 01: 03
    LSV went for export for the first time, only slightly larger than for ourselves: length about 95 meters, width about 20 meters, displacement - 6000 tons, payload - 2500 tons.
    On October 24, 2023, General Eric Smith, Commandant of the US Marine Corps at Bollinger Shipyards, accepts as the customer (construction with American assistance) the second LSV for the Israeli Navy. The first, INS Nachshon, arrived in Haifa at the end of September and has already been equipped with Israeli electronic warfare systems, communications, etc.... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9NVyoPXcAAAuNb?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
  16. 0
    22 December 2023 05: 25
    So they stripped the Japanese of all this.
  17. 0
    6 February 2024 19: 24
    Jedna z utkvělých myšlenek Pentagonu je, že má dominovat na mořích av letectvu. Americké vojenské loďstvo však z jedné třetiny tvoří reaktivované staré lodě, na kterých mají námořníci tuto nejhorší noční můru:Nejhorší co by nás mohlo potkat, je boj... Ale co do počtu lo dí mají námořnictvo silné. Američanům jak známo nelze věřit. Například asi před dvěma roky Ruská federace zjistila, že třetina satelitů z celkového počtu označených jako vyřazené, jsou ve skutečnosti aktivní.
  18. 0
    16 March 2024 20: 23
    This is good and correct.
    Army tugs and ferries are ready to build a floating causeway from the ship to the shore, allowing vehicles on tracks and wheels to pass over it.


    But I think that for us this is only in the future.

    Russia is now losing its old landing craft, which should have been replaced long ago.
    New BDKs, along with the fact that they must be helicopter carriers, with powerful naval artillery, their own air defense, anti-drone and anti-submarine protection, must also carry boats and tugs and ferries, the result is a huge machine. If we assume that the BDK must transport a reinforced battalion and that it is planned to transform brigades into divisions, then each fleet needs at least a dozen such BDKs and more than twenty for the Pacific Fleet. Total fifty. With a service life of twenty-five years, you need to build at least two of these per year, so that in ten years you will have a minimum acceptable number. Considering the huge size and displacement, they need to be further increased and it should also be a floating dock.
    Huge ships are cooler than the American America-class universal landing ships.
    And now there is nowhere to deploy them. We need access to the Atlantic and expanded access to the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

    In other words, to be able to actively use the Marine Corps as such, it is necessary first to win a major continental war or restore the Soviet Union along the borders from Holland to Japan and from India to the North Pole.

    And to fight the enemy fleet, you can still create airships carrying anti-submarine missiles, mines and drones to block enemy communications, which is already good for victory on the continent.

    At the same time, to gain supremacy at sea as such, it is first necessary to win a continental war. Personally, I don’t understand what kind of tasks the new marine divisions are supposed to solve without a fleet and without modern large landing craft. If we are talking about the fact that the Marines are highly motivated and competent warriors who have covered themselves with glory, then it is necessary to pull others up to this level, and not to sculpt a hunchback. For example, for many years now everyone has been talking about the need for mountain riflemen, but they sent landing troops and marines to Chechnya. Also now, competent, well-armed and motivated motorized riflemen are needed. And accordingly, technology comes first for them.