Marine vehicle in which 14 died is 'one of the more vulnerable'

[quaoar]

Newhouse News Service

WASHINGTON — The 14 Marines killed in Iraq Wednesday were riding in a 28-ton, lightly armored amphibious behemoth that experts say was “never intended” for inland urban operations where it is “one of the more vulnerable” combat vehicles on the battlefield.

The Marines — members of the 3rd Battalion, 25th Regiment, a Reserve unit from Brook Park, Ohio — were killed outside the town of Haditha about 140 miles northwest of Baghdad when a roadside bomb detonated near or beneath their Amphibious Assault Vehicle.

Until now, the Marine AAV, normally launched from ships and moved ashore protected by tanks and artillery, was considered safe for operations in Iraq. Protected with an inch of aluminum armor — less than that carried by the Army’s Bradley Fighting Vehicle or Abrams tank — they hold up to 25 combat-loaded Marines and a crew of three.

AAVs in Iraq have additional armor designed to protect them from the blast of a 155 mm artillery shell at a distance of 25 meters or about 80 feet, said Doug Coffey, a senior official at BAE Systems, the London-based international defense and aerospace company that designed and manufactured the vehicle in the early 1970s.

[DS1]

1. That's what I said in the LBN thread

I used to drive one, they aren't intended for extended inland operations. We hit the beach, drop the grunts, blow some shit up and get back to the ship to carry out the next wave.

[Bouncy Ball]

4. So now the question would be, why are they using them for

extended inland operations???

[DS1]

10. Rhetorical question, yes?

[oneighty]

8. Hey DS1

Is that the one called the 'DUCK' dating back to WW2?

180

[DS1]

9. No, it's a completely enclosed vehicle

It's been around, in various forms, since the late 70's. I think.

[Ernesto]

13. Not an amtrac?

That's what we cruised Nam on top of (too dangerous to ride inside).

[DS1]

16. Similar in concept - read alk about it here

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/aavp7a1.htm

feel free to ask any 'real world' questions about it - that I can answer without exposing major vulnerabilities

[leveymg]

2. Protected with an inch of aluminum armor

By comparison, an M1A-1 Abrams main battle tank has up to 26 inches of steel and composite armour plating. And, the Iraqis have even figured out how to knock some of those out.

It's a slaughter on both sides. It's gotta stop.

[Bouncy Ball]

3. Yikes.

An inch? :-(

Holy shit.

[leveymg]

6. That's not much more than the old canoe I sank

by paddling into a rock. Fortunately, no one was setting off high explosive charges nearby.

[Tsiyu]

5. "We go to war with the crappy equipment we've got."

Meanwhile, Congress votes itself the best of everything, and Freepers are enjoying those Nascar collectibles and Swiffers and Panama City trips their tax cuts brought them....

[quaoar]

11. How much armor could be purchased

with the $1.5 billion slush fund that Tom DeLay set up for himself?

[Tsiyu]

12. Or say, if those Hatriots at Halliburton said:

"You know, these guys are DYING to protect us and our scum-sucking way of life. Even if they are all losers, what's say we Halliburtonesians forego the next little bonus and pass it along to the US troops for body armour." Imagine that?

Oh, yeah. That would actually be PROMOTING LIFE OVER MONEY.....

which they unashamedly DO NOT DO....

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. What and cut into their obscene profits?

:yoiks:

[Tsiyu]

15. I know. I know.

Pipe dream.

[spuddonna]

7. So, why were they using it?

Are we that low on supply vehicles? Is this yet another Rumsfeld screw up? 14 of our finest died because they were riding in something that had NO BUSINESS being there...

I understand that 'freedom is messy', but why are our soldiers still struggling to get the equipment they need? It's so infuriating...