Posted on 08/04/2005 5:34:06 AM PDT by robowombat
WASHINGTON - The Marines killed Wednesday in Iraq were patrolling desert terrain in a vehicle better suited for those famous Marine Corps beach landings, experts say.
The amphibious assault vehicle - the Marine Corps' signature transport - is designed to carry troops in water operations from ship to shore, then operate on the beach and inland.
"You could certainly question whether an amphibious vehicle is the most appropriate ... to be driving around in a desert," said John Pike, defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a private think tank.
With tracks instead of wheels, the vehicle is designed to be dropped from ships for coastal assaults, then move through surf at a speed of 6 mph. It cruises on land at 20 mph to 30 mph.
But its biggest drawback in Iraq, analysts said, is that because it must be able to stay afloat, its armor plating is lighter than that in heavier vehicles used by the Army. Marines deployed in Iraq have often criticized the protection provided by the amphibious vehicles.
Army Brig. Gen. Carter Ham told a Pentagon press conference that he knows of no data showing the amphibious vehicle has been more vulnerable to insurgent bombs than other transport equipment being used in Iraq.
Analysts noted that insurgents have figured out how to blow up equally or more heavily armored vehicles, including the Bradleys used by the Army.
Ham, deputy director for operations at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said it was too early in the investigation to give many details on the incident in which 14 Marines patrolling in an amphibious vehicle were killed by a roadside bomb near the northwestern Iraqi city of Haditha.
"I can tell you that they were a unit that was moving in an amphibious assault vehicle ... their normal vehicle to move in," Ham said. "It is an armored vehicle that they use in the conduct of their normal operations."
Asked if there has been evidence that amphibious vehicles in Iraq have been more vulnerable to insurgent bombs than Bradley fighting vehicles or Abrams tanks, Ham said he knew of no specific analysis.
"But clearly an AAV does not offer the same protection as a tank does. So there is clearly some difference," he said, using its acronym. "Nonetheless, it is an armored vehicle, and the commanders make an assessment as to what equipment is appropriate for each operation."
Pike and others said the amphibious vehicle's design can protect troops against small arms fire, not a direct or indirect hit from a large explosion.
"It was not designed primarily to drive around in the desert hundreds of miles from the beach," he said. "If they had been riding in an Abrams (tank) this probably wouldn't have happened, but there's not enough Abrams to go around."
Tanks also aren't the best vehicles for some missions.
"The crux of this issue is that the Marine force really isn't very well designed for the type of fight it's facing in Iraq," said Loren Thompson, defense analyst at Lexington Institute think tank.
With the Army and its reserve and guard components stretched thin by the war, some 23,000 Marines are deployed among the total force of 138,000 in Iraq.
"The Marines themselves have been trained heavily for this kind of combat ... there is no problem with Marine training," but rather with "old equipment that was designed for amphibious warfare," said Thompson.
Before the Iraq campaign, he said, "The Marines did not plan to do deep interior operations over long stretches of time. This is kind of a new experience for them."
"Marines pave the way for the other forces. ... they kick in the door but they are not supposed to occupy all the rooms," Thompson said.
Losses of Marines in Iraq have been especially high at times.
Over the final five months of 2004, the Marines, who were contributing about a quarter of the total U.S. forces in Iraq, suffered 49 percent of the combat deaths, Pentagon statistics show. In January, 30 Marines were killed when their CH-53E helicopter crashed in western Iraq.
Marcus Corbin, senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information, said it is hard to fault the Marines for using amphibious vehicles in Iraq since it is their primary tool for transporting troops with armored protection. But he said in the more than two years of the campaign, the military should have designed, built and "already have something in the field by now better suited for this kind of operation."
The Marine Corps public affairs office at the Pentagon referred all queries to spokesmen in Iraq, who did not respond to e-mails.
With tracks instead of wheels, the vehicle is designed to be dropped from ships for coastal assaults, then move through surf at a speed of 6 mph. It cruises on land at 20 mph to 30 mph.
But its biggest drawback in Iraq, analysts said, is that because it must be able to stay afloat, its armor plating is lighter than that in heavier vehicles used by the Army. Marines deployed in Iraq have often criticized the protection provided by the amphibious vehicles. "
Get ready for the MSM in coordination with various 'defense analysts' to mount an outcry campaign to try and indite the Bush Administration for 'not protecting the troops' by deploying the marines far inland with 'amphibious trucks' instead of 'armored vehicles'.
Get ready for a bunch of FReepers who are going to do the same thing right here on this thread. LOL
I can see it now: "WE should be" and "They should be" and "Here's what they need to do..."
I didn't realize the M1A2 had a troop transport version. /sarc
I'm reading elsewhere that the real problem is that there was inside info about where they were going to be just like the prior group of snipers were tipped off. Methinks that they should be looking closely at the locals working on the base.
We need to throw down our guns and run as fast as we can away from Iraq. We cannot beat the brave Iraqi martyrs. It's hopeless. We are doomed. Let's surrender while there is still a chance of survival!!!
It is a good point. The military should be using the right vehicles for the job.
There are lots of other APC's in the Iraqi field that are better equipped for the current threat of roadside bombs and surprise gun-and-run attacks. Even the Hummers are not adequate in the current situation.
But then, only an Abrams or a Bradley is going to stand up to a 200 lb IED or an RPG. But then, they aren't designed to be used when rapid deployment hunting down a terrorist cell is the mission.
You might say we need an entirely new vehicle that can stand up to the IEDs and RPGs but is designed to be very mobile. The Strykers come closest, but they need more armor.
Throughout history, it's always been a race between attacker and attacked.
Every time we get better armor, they'll get a bigger bomb.
Sometimes the strength of the armor will be ahead of the bomb, and sometimes the size of the bombs will get ahead of the armor.
LOL - both of ya. ;-)
I'd rather run around in an amtrack than an up-armored humvee. At least the amtrack isn't highly modified to suit a role it was never intended to do.
Also, the m1a2 has suffered losses. Is there a perfect machine for all threats? I doubt it.
Then again, I live in the relative safety of my air conditioned office.
Thank God for the brave men willing to do this work on our behalf!
Excuse me (not meant at you) but there isn't anything that can be built and on the ground in two years under the DoD procurement system -- not going to happen. We are lucky to get a Defense bill passed with all the sqawking from the RATs -- could have heard the Monday morning quarterbacks of today screaming that the system was too expensive and not needed.
The media and the RATs have given aid and comfort to the enemy and emboldened the terrorists in Iraq and around the world and now they criticize. Makes me want to scream this morning -- sick and tired of the media, RATs, and some lamebrains on here recently that sound like RATs in their we must set a time table for withdrawal.
Really feel for the family and friends of these men killed but like my Mom said -- she remembers D-Day when the all those soldiers were killed which was the beginning of end of Hitler. We were attacked on 9-11 just like Pearl Harbor -- this is a War on an even tougher enemy and the lamebrains on here and in this Country need to understand that this is WAR and in WAR people get killed and you don't set timetables for withdrawal. If you think I am irritated reading on this site about setting a timetable for withdrawal, you are correct.
Not too happy with Rumsfeld either as this is the WRONG time for a BRAC and a waste of money that could be better spent on getting new weapon systems for our men on the ground. The Air Force BRAC is so flawed I cannot believe what I am hearing and reading. Was told a long time ago that we were going to pay for having Clinton for eight years when his military promotions took over -- that day is here. That doesn't even include the fact they didn't take into consideration the bringing home of the troops from overseas to see what type of infrastructure they are going to need.
We had eight years of Clinton tanking the Defense Department and are still in the process of upgrading our weapon systems. Even then the RATs stall the Defense bills and new weapon systems. And we now have in the military leadership a lot of people promoted by Clinton -- women in particular that we could have done without.
My two cents on this biased news article!
I'd be distressed to learn that locals working on the base would know their movements so indepth.
No, the Bradley and the Stryker are actually more vulnerable than the Marine vehicle.
An Abrams is a tank, not an APC, and is also vulnerable to damage from a 200 lb bomb, and can be damaged by a wll-aimed RPG to the tracks.
DAMN JUST DAMN.
I am starting to wonder if.........................
In order to get Marines from the ships to the shore efficiently, these vehicles must be higher capacity ones. Army vehicles, designed to move around the battlefield, are sized for the basic unit, the squad. The amtrack carries roughly half a platoon, but the Marines are to fight dismounted. Getting the Marines to the beach without scattering them, two Amtracks can bring in a platoon with reasonable chances of keeping together.
The Bradley is more vulnerable than the AAV?
You're kidding, right?
Check the armor loadout.
The Bradley's armor and capabilities TOWER over the AAV.
That's why the USMC chose the Army Cavalry (M3 Bradleys) to lead off the (second) Fallujah assault.
I think it still is the Soviet solution that works best for these problems. In Lebanon in the eighties, someone was foolish enough to kidnap one of their people and they went and killed the families of the kidnappers. That ended their troubles.
If they had been riding in an Abrams (tank) this probably wouldn't have happened, but there's not enough Abrams to go around."
John Pike, defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a private think tank.
Brilliant thinker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.