The Associated Press August 3, 2005
Marines in Iraq Killed in Amphibious Truck
By Pauline Jelinek
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.
© Copyright 2005, The Associated Press
