Amphibious Warfare thread

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
All matters Amphibious. Covers all aspects from ships to troops.
 
Literally littoral, then?
 
Why have we always chosen the separate LPH and LPD route rather than vessels that combines the features of both, as the Americans do?


Posted quickly, while the cat's not sat on the keyboard.
 
I had a week on HMS Intrepid as a nipper, me and about 30 others. My old man was a CPO, Steward. (bit gay I know)
Embarked at Plymouth, beach assault landing for the booties at Portland, home at Pompey.

They did a RAS, simulated Seatcat launch and everything for us.
 
Why have we always chosen the separate LPH and LPD route rather than vessels that combines the features of both, as the Americans do?


Posted quickly, while the cat's not sat on the keyboard.
Someone decided we could save money by cutting the hanger and alot of deck area from the Albion's.... :(
 
Actually, now I think of it, ISTR someone telling me yonks ago that they were conceived with two different users in mind. The LPH's, the original Albion and Bulwark, and Herpes (it was a carrier! :) ), were for for RM as Commando carriers operating helos, whereas the LPD's, Fearless and Intrepid, were more for the Army, having the capability to put tanks ashore.

Does anyone know if this is indeed the case?


Posted quickly, while the cat's not sat on the keyboard.
 

Jeneral28

Old-Salt
Why have we always chosen the separate LPH and LPD route rather than vessels that combines the features of both, as the Americans do?


Posted quickly, while the cat's not sat on the keyboard.
The Americans do have separate classes: LHA/LHD (America/Wasp Class), LPD (San A Class), and their LSDs (
Whidbey Island etc)
 
The Americans do have separate classes: LHA/LHD (America/Wasp Class), LPD (San A Class), and their LSDs (
Whidbey Island etc)
Yes, but we DON'T have a vessel such as the old Tarawa class LHA. I'm just seeking clarification why that is.


Posted quickly, while the cat's not sat on the keyboard.
 
Last edited:
Because like any ship - try to get it to do 2 jobs and it'll be bad at both of them.
 
Here is a question then, why do we spend so much money on amphibious capabilities we use rarely but scrimp and save on port enablement that we use all the time?

PS
This is an ill thought out question bereft of any expert (or otherwise) knowledge :)
 
So. On the Carrier thread we have the battle group composition - argued over because of scenarios, mission etc. I am not sure the septics have the same trouble (at the moment).

Should we wish to have capacity for limited intervention on littoral shores what would an amphib force look like?

What assets would you assign to protect the force and how would you square the circle of not having enough assets to protect both forces at the same time... in your own time, carry on.

Krom.
 
and the assets to protect that group? given that carrier strike will need assets too...
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top