LVTP-7: Rear Light

An analysis of the impossibility to impact the rear light from the RM positions in such a bizarre trajectory, more pictures and videos reveals that there's no sign of battle damage in the rear area; and that the rear light used as evidence by Phillips is a falsification.

A war relic

The left rear light cluster, pierced through with another rocket and bullets. This cluster was shown by the author during the presentation of his book:

Click on pictures to enlarge

I found more pictures of it, and it appears to be removed by a cutting disc, the border is too clean for being ripped by RPG impact or torch cut as stated in the book.

Some issues with that piece

Firstly, it looks more similar to the right cluster, because the left one has several accessories attached, like this:

But let’s give it a pass, we can take a closer look at the exit hole:

The rocket passed right through, at roughly 90 degrees, from one side to the other, but which side? Let’s see the mounting holes:

Two small holes and a bigger one forming a triangle. Now the mounting holes in the Amtrac’s left side:

Small holes up, big hole down, it seems like the rocket came straight from above and pierced through vertically to the ground.

A weird impact angle

Assuming that the cluster is legitimate (I would like to see that authentication from Bovington Museum that Phillips mentioned), it’s still impossible for the Royal Marines to hit the cluster in that angle. Let’s see his new explanation:

 

Left side down, right side up… it’s funny, because his own witness, RM Murray Patterson said the exact opposite:

Apart from the confusion of the rear ramp drawn as doors and the nose shape (an ambulance? An ice cream truck?), it’s clear that the supposedly destroyed VAO was left side up, right side down.

Pitting, scabbing and spalling

But enough explanations, let’s see the VAO 17 pictures:

Apart from weathering, cracked paint, and the slightly bent housing, there’s no pitting, scabbing, spalling or any sign of enemy fire damage, outside or inside the vehicle. What Phillips saw as “pitting” in an over zoomed low-resolution image was just these connectors, chipped paint and a bent support:

This internal trapezoidal piece isn't a repairing patch either, in these pictures you can see that is present in other LVTP-7s:

Authentic or not?

There’s even some issues with the cluster’s authenticity, let’s analyze the features in this piece. There are three main components in it, the cylindrical shroud, a rectangular bottom piece, and three bolts and nuts fixed to the sides:

I did a simple 3D reconstruction of how that cluster would have looked before being hit:

But when we compare it against pictures of an intact cluster, it’s not a good match, really:

There’s no rectangular bottom piece, it’s just a cylinder welded to the hull, and the bolts and nuts are not present in the left cluster either:

Not only that, if you compare how rusted is the “war relic” against the piece in this pictures, then appears something crucial:  the relic is made of a different material, most probably some kind of  steel, while the real shroud is made of aluminium, like the rest of the hull. Welding steel to aluminium is complicated , requires special techniques and it’s expensive; a rear light cover isn’t vital enough to justify those inconveniences. Moreover, it’s not advised for a seafaring vehicle: “when you put two dissimilar metals in electrical contact in the presence of a conductor such as salt water, a voltage is produced and the metal that is higher in the EMF chart is preferentially corroded. This is called galvanic corrosion. When you join aluminum and steel together, the aluminum will be preferentially corroded. Surprising, isn’t it, since we think of aluminum as being more corrosion-resistant than steel? In fact, aluminum is more resistant to general corrosion than steel. What I am describing here is a preferential corrosion that occurs locally at an aluminum/steel joint.”

Let’s get back to the USMC Amtrac picture, but looking more in detail the right light:

There we can see the light fixture attached to the hull and covering the mounting holes, that implies that the cover is in fact just a cylinder welded to the vehicle.

I had a chat with NCO Ernesto López, who was in charge of the Recovery VAO during the Argentine landing and after viewing the pictures, also contested the relic’s authenticity, confirming that the piece is made of aluminium.

Just as a corroborating experiment, I asked my friend Sebastián to use a magnet to see if it sticks to the cluster and the hull, as we expected, the magnet didn’t stick, except to the rusty steel bolts and electrical contacts protruding from the cover.

In conclusion, I can say that the proposed relic is probably a falsification, the angle of penetration is incompatible with the supposed witnesses’ accounts, and finally, VAO 17 doesn’t show any sign of damage in the rear section.

Next: LVTP-7 Nose Patch