I served on CEV s and AVLB s for 12 years back in the 70s and 80s, the MOS was 12f. never had a leak from the bridge system but we took care of them. they were army vehicles but the AVLB s finally were given to the marines. when I was assigned to the bridge tanks with a Armour Battion, I also had to serve with the tank companys for annual gunnery, my tanks were always in the top 5 for qualification, twice was TOP GUN. in case you don't know what the CEV is, its Combat Engineer Vehicle m728
The idea originated in WW1 with the bundles of logs tied on the front of tanks to cover trenches so the tanks could get by. Recently, though, the bridges have gotten bigger, better, and faster. However, your point remains, the oldest example of a specialized bridgelayer with a full bridge was British ww2.
With that long of a "lever", I'm amazed it doesn't tip over the vehicle when it's extended. I presume the bridge must be made of some light weight material, e.g., aluminum.
@adhdtexas You are incorrect sir. I am in the Marines and work on these vehicles on a daily basis. I also work on the M88A2 Hercules. The Marines use the M60A1 chassis for this fine vehicle, the AVLB. The Army Engineer Battalions use the new M104 Wolverine, which uses the M1A1 chassis.
Actually the original AVLB was made by the Germans in the late 30s so not Russian copies. And the make of these is the M60A3. I was an operator for about 4 years and a TC for 3 more then moved up to ACES and CEVs. They have been working on the Wolverine for over 10 years to get it right because when you goto launch this one you are a 38 Foot Tall target. The Wolverine is supposed to lay flat and move forward based on another German Model. The Army operators are obviously in training at FLW.
En el año 1.969 estuve en el aparque Central de Ingenieros en Villaverde (MADRID) viendo el manejo de éste CARRO LANZAPUENTES M-80 A 1, de los cuales conservo fotografías subido en ellos. Creo que ha llovido bastante desde ese dia.
Regardless of who owns it, I think this is one awesome piece of machinery. By the way, the registered owners are as follows. Marine Corps, US Army, Navy Seabees,Corps of Engineers,and the Army National Guard. And instead of fighter each other, what the threats to our country? Or should we have them wait till you guys get done?
@Littlemanto I operated this 70 ton hydraulic, final drive PTO key throwing nightmare for 13 years. its a piece of junk. And so is the M9 ACE even with the most experienced of operators. I taught many of 12B's and 12C's at Fort Leonard Wood, MO and in my and many other nco's will tell you the same thing. Sappers Forward
The pulling force at the point where the hudraulic cylinder is fastened to the bridge had to insanly high when the bridge is fully deployed but still not on the ground..
to who ever said the usmc dosent operate these..... there are litterlay 3 of them across the street from my room right now. hell ill go get a picture if anyone wants....
@brainouty of course it'll DC otherwise how do you expect something else to cross that bridge? This bridge is not for just infantry but specially for tanks and vehicles!
@adhdtexas I'm pretty sure I was there for this... 1st Tank Battalion. They do have AVLB's, and we had a M60 we restored that went in front of the Battalion Office. We had 4 of them and they did suck just like sworn2prtcusa2002 said. They leaked everywhere, constantly breaking, we had 2 drivers almost flip them over on the washboard coming back from field ops. Good Times.. nothing like breathing in pure carbon monoxide from the personal heater.
Umm... Marines have their own fast jet component (Hornets, Harriers), mechanized units etc. support units. Apart from the medical component (which the Navy handles), USMC alone is very comparable to the whole defense forces of quite a few landlocked countries, and exceeds many. The Marines are an all-Abrams force now MBT-wise, but M60-based engineering vehicles are still very likely (Wolverine, the bridging Abrams, is Army-only I believe).
@adhdtexas Not true. The Marine Corps uses these. Right now there are 2 in Afghanistan with 1st Tank Bn Delta Co. and 4 in H+S Co. My sources? I am a mechanic for them and the M88.
Fuck me sideways that was amazing. 1 - those hydraulic pumps must be super charged to handle that weight and stress. 2 - why is the crewman put at risk undoing the antenna when bridge nearly in transport position? couldn't they have provided a auto retract antenna to avoid enemy fire while retrieving bridge?
@adhdtexas im pretty sure each branch will use all equipment needed to complete a job, i think it's a poor excuse for a failed mission that they couldnt cross a ravine, well that's just my opinion :) i could be wrong
Seh ich auch so... da machts der Bieber geschickter der schiebt die Teile übereinander und wird net höher als Ausgangsposition... des war auch vorgabe bei der entwicklung damals...
@adhdtexas If thats the case, then why do I see Marines at the motor pool here at 29 Palms Marine base driving and using the AVLBs around the base..... trust me, I'm a Marine.
Define "RPG"... regular RPG-7 rounds and similar light AT would require a very lucky shot for a kill, just denting the main armour, but destruction of equipment or mobility kill is possible... while some dual-HEAT warheads and RPG-29 will happily shoot through the frontal armour of some slightly older tanks.
I was TC on an AVLB in the Army. They're big, heavy, and slow---- but they provide great shade!
So stealthy too. My hearing is still 42% effective after hearing this vid with headphones. Thumbs up!
I served on CEV s and AVLB s for 12 years back in the 70s and 80s, the MOS was 12f. never had a leak from the bridge system but we took care of them. they were army vehicles but the AVLB s finally were given to the marines.
when I was assigned to the bridge tanks with a Armour Battion, I also had to serve with the tank companys for annual gunnery, my tanks were always in the top 5 for qualification, twice was TOP GUN. in case you don't know what the CEV is, its Combat Engineer Vehicle m728
Wow. That is a pretty impressive piece of technology!
That's one of the best things I've ever seen. So cool.
The huge tweezers catch the enemy soldier and bring him in from a safe distance (It's slowed down) Brilliant !!
The idea originated in WW1 with the bundles of logs tied on the front of tanks to cover trenches so the tanks could get by.
Recently, though, the bridges have gotten bigger, better, and faster.
However, your point remains, the oldest example of a specialized bridgelayer with a full bridge was British ww2.
When my grandpa who drove an M48 during the Korean war saw this, he said these tanks were lame to him. I LOLLED!
With that long of a "lever", I'm amazed it doesn't tip over the vehicle when it's extended. I presume the bridge must be made of some light weight material, e.g., aluminum.
even my laptop battery was draining like hell streaming this video.
The engineer that designed this was pimp
I was in the 2nd 67th Armored Div in 1972 I worked on these very same ones
@adhdtexas
You are incorrect sir. I am in the Marines and work on these vehicles on a daily basis. I also work on the M88A2 Hercules. The Marines use the M60A1 chassis for this fine vehicle, the AVLB. The Army Engineer Battalions use the new M104 Wolverine, which uses the M1A1 chassis.
Actually the original AVLB was made by the Germans in the late 30s so not Russian copies. And the make of these is the M60A3. I was an operator for about 4 years and a TC for 3 more then moved up to ACES and CEVs. They have been working on the Wolverine for over 10 years to get it right because when you goto launch this one you are a 38 Foot Tall target. The Wolverine is supposed to lay flat and move forward based on another German Model. The Army operators are obviously in training at FLW.
Enemy: We have a demolition team.
U.S.A.: We have a mobile bridge.
Enemy: Oh shit! 0.0
I though the truck at 1:18 was driving under it at first. I was like "Ohhh shiiiittt!!!"
yeah I wonder if there are plans for making them connectable?
Cooll! Thanks!
En el año 1.969 estuve en el aparque Central de Ingenieros en Villaverde (MADRID) viendo el manejo de éste CARRO LANZAPUENTES M-80 A 1, de los cuales conservo fotografías subido en ellos. Creo que ha llovido bastante desde ese dia.
I'm pretty sure I had this as a GI Joe toy growing up
Pretty high profile while laying the bridge.
super kool !!
one of those rare moments when both the top comments are amusing. someone get the camera.
In the 80's I had a GI Joe Toy just like that
Sweden has used similar tanks for quite some time, nothing new under the sky:)
I would like a tank for Christmas.
PHewW! I would have been worried if a tank had to cross that mud pit! Go combat engineers.
Regardless of who owns it, I think this is one awesome piece of machinery. By the way, the registered owners are as follows. Marine Corps, US Army, Navy Seabees,Corps of Engineers,and the Army National Guard. And instead of fighter each other, what the threats to our country? Or should we have them wait till you guys get done?
I saw the Older Version at Fort Lost in The Woods Back in 1977. Any Gun's on These Now
@Littlemanto I operated this 70 ton hydraulic, final drive PTO key throwing nightmare for 13 years. its a piece of junk. And so is the M9 ACE even with the most experienced of operators. I taught many of 12B's and 12C's at Fort Leonard Wood, MO and in my and many other nco's will tell you the same thing. Sappers Forward
i feel like if they hired a platoon of amish soldiers it would be much more combat effective and reduce casualties.
The pulling force at the point where the hudraulic cylinder is fastened to the bridge had to insanly high when the bridge is fully deployed but still not on the ground..
@sworn2prtcusa2002 I never had a lot of problems from the AVLB's. I loved them.
it's a decepticon, you should know that autobots never get the military vehicles, only sports cars and trucks.
to who ever said the usmc dosent operate these..... there are litterlay 3 of them across the street from my room right now. hell ill go get a picture if anyone wants....
@brainouty of course it'll DC otherwise how do you expect something else to cross that bridge? This bridge is not for just infantry but specially for tanks and vehicles!
based on the M-60 p;atform, it has not been in the active duty for well over 20 years now
And what will pass thru that bridge if there's a tank attached to it ?
@adhdtexas I'm pretty sure I was there for this... 1st Tank Battalion. They do have AVLB's, and we had a M60 we restored that went in front of the Battalion Office. We had 4 of them and they did suck just like sworn2prtcusa2002 said. They leaked everywhere, constantly breaking, we had 2 drivers almost flip them over on the washboard coming back from field ops.
Good Times.. nothing like breathing in pure carbon monoxide from the personal heater.
you'd never hear that bridge being deployed! hahaha
Thumbs up if you had the GI Joe version.
It detaches and can Re-attach on the other side.
Umm... Marines have their own fast jet component (Hornets, Harriers), mechanized units etc. support units. Apart from the medical component (which the Navy handles), USMC alone is very comparable to the whole defense forces of quite a few landlocked countries, and exceeds many. The Marines are an all-Abrams force now MBT-wise, but M60-based engineering vehicles are still very likely (Wolverine, the bridging Abrams, is Army-only I believe).
thats how you know its working if they arent leaking then you have a problem
2:48 spider getting up in slow-mo
@adhdtexas Not true. The Marine Corps uses these. Right now there are 2 in Afghanistan with 1st Tank Bn Delta Co. and 4 in H+S Co. My sources? I am a mechanic for them and the M88.
the bridges when unfolded can span 60ft kinda screwed then if you need a bridge thats 62ft
i prefere the AVLB Leguan , from the germans, it has a 26 meters bridge and has a MLC of 70 tons
The tank is heaver than the bridge it self.
Does it have cupholders?
@WarLordTR7 it still varies: lucky turret shot 1-2 side hull 3-5 rear hull 1-3 front hull 3-6 there are different rpg's to
@adhdtexas Sir in games tanks get destroyed when it takes 2-3 RPG shots. How is this in reality? Is 1 shot enough to destroy it?
Fuck me sideways that was amazing.
1 - those hydraulic pumps must be super charged to handle that weight and stress.
2 - why is the crewman put at risk undoing the antenna when bridge nearly in transport position? couldn't they have provided a auto retract antenna to avoid enemy fire while retrieving bridge?
not to mention that they have a out rigger in teh front of the tank
alluminium bridge?
drove one into bosnia over the sava
Like the US is the only one to use the same concept
@ThePurpleAustralian
About 950 hp and well over 1000 torque
@adhdtexas im pretty sure each branch will use all equipment needed to complete a job, i think it's a poor excuse for a failed mission that they couldnt cross a ravine, well that's just my opinion :) i could be wrong
think it has and a lockable cubby box to put your satnav in lol regards kev
Seh ich auch so... da machts der Bieber geschickter der schiebt die Teile übereinander und wird net höher als Ausgangsposition... des war auch vorgabe bei der entwicklung damals...
Remembering me at... BATTLEFIELD 3.
so sick...
I worked for the company that manufactured them..
@WarLordTR7 there are different answers as to what type of tank you are talking about
Yup, don't forget that
they only use these after they control the immediate area.
no wounder gas is so expensive... lol but it pretty cool
AVLB.... a very large bridge
@adhdtexas If thats the case, then why do I see Marines at the motor pool here at 29 Palms Marine base driving and using the AVLBs around the base..... trust me, I'm a Marine.
that are bridge builder tanks.
piercing is what matters, if one rpg pierces the tank right it is most likely dead.
this is great and all but i think in the time it takes to actually get the damn bridge out, someone wouldve hit that shit with an rpg already.
then drive an abhrams over to make sure they help the soil.
"Unfunded improvements … water rations heater."
So they didn't want to pay for a kettle?
@sungod1213 but somehow after they invaded Irak the oil price didint change
i'm confused...is this an autobot or a decepticon?
to bad all strong thing has a weak point/area?
Look! They made a special bridge for your mom!
Was expecting to see a tank firing bridge at stuff...
thats in the first mission of MW2
This has been around ror many years
I dont see where it says it's suppose to be new
Use on D Day by the Brits one of their funnies.
Pakistan is the second country who made these
haha, Decepticon for sure because Autobots wouldn't turn into military vehicles.
im mw2 they called that bigfoot
I onder if it's got heating...
They do leak but I liked them both AVLB eas ok but the ACE was better and yes this is army equipment not marines
Ooh-rah
Marines
Define "RPG"... regular RPG-7 rounds and similar light AT would require a very lucky shot for a kill, just denting the main armour, but destruction of equipment or mobility kill is possible... while some dual-HEAT warheads and RPG-29 will happily shoot through the frontal armour of some slightly older tanks.
Rectifico: El modelo es M60-A1
Does it really matter?
This is not new. Something very similar was used in the Second World War by the British 79th Armoured Division
De algo productivo que sirvan los tanques.
Jeśli by wam coś groziło amerykańce, to możemy wam wysłać do pomocy nasze czołgi. Wszystkie 3.
I think it is an autobot.
im here because of mw2
das sieht man doch aus 100km entfernung^^
@brainouty You're welcome :)