Military Bridging – A Quick Follow Up

The earlier post on military bridging and gap crossing threw up quite a few question so a quick follow up post is in order.

Fascines

Fascines started as bundles of brushwood and have progressed to bundles of plastic drainage pipes, they are simplicity personified. However, they do have a couple of disadvantages, namely unwieldiness and weight. In an undeployed state they are also as bulky as when deployed.

The all encompassing US FCS and UK FRES programmes did look at gap crossing and fascines in particular. Both programmes had a lot in common so the solutions proposed did have some commonality.

QinetiQ have the ‘Compact Gap Crossing’ systems as below

QinetiQ Fascine

This uses a series of inflatable tubes to fill the gap. Obvious advantages are volume reduction when not deployed and crucially, they can be deployed without resorting the specialist vehicles. QinetiQ worked with RFD Beuafort (now Survivetec) to produce a working prototype that was successfully tested. JW Automarine and Airbeam have also produced similar devices.

The status of these projects seem to ‘on hold’, they are ready for funds to appear.

Close Support/Assault Bridging

In the comments on the previous post we discussed alternatives to the UK Titan and No 10,11 and 12 bridges, paying particular attention to the mode of bridging and comparing the traditional scissor, drawbridge and the more modern Leguan type bridge from Generaly Dynamics. Although we might say modern, the concept can trace its roots to the Wild Assault Bridge of the interwar years. The scissor assault bridge was developed by Captains Galphon, Stewart and Mr Delaney of the Experimental Bridging Establishment (EBE, the forerunner of MEXE)

Typical Scissor Bridge Operation

Typical Up and Over Bridge Operation

GD Leguan Bridge Operation (Sisu 10×10, Wolverine and Panzerschnellbrücke Biber)

They can also be truck mounted as this example from the Finnish company Sisu shows

The US Wolverine programme that combines an M1A2 with the KMW Leguan bridge system has been cut short at less than 50 units and a more traditional scissor type bridge mounted on surplus M1A1 tank chassis will be used instead. The status of the programme is quoted as being; operations and support of 44 systems, resolution of long standing field problems

The Joint Assault Bridge is still in early stages but will be able to carry a Class 70 vehicle across an 18.3m gap, somewhat shorter than the Number 10 at 24.5m.

US forces can also use the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System (REBS) from General Dynamics. A version is being fielded on the Stryker vehicles as the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge system-Adaptable Bridge Launching Kit (RE B-ABLK) and a palletised version can be mounted on the PLS, the US version of the DROPS. This increases the flexibility of the bridging system because it can be deployed from any number of DROPS type vehicles, not just specific bridging vehicles.

ERE Logistics have also recognised the logistics benefits of mounting bridging system on a DROPS/PLS type flatrack, the ERES90T and 80T looks like a very interesting solution.

There would seem to be some logic to moving towards a DROP type truck solution for the majority of non assault type bridging.

Tags: Combat Engineering