Stupidest. News. Story. Ever.

I opened my morning paper to read what is, I’m quite sure, the stupidest news story I’ve ever read. The subhead alone should be a capital offense.

Amphibious vehicle weakness exposed
Personnel carrier not ‘anything like a tank’

WASHINGTON — The 14 Marines killed in Iraq on 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.

So let me see if I understand about this new “weakness” that has been “exposed.”

An Amphibious vehicle does not have the same armor as a tank. — I’ll type that again in case the shock of this sudden revelation might be too much to comprehend…. An Amphibious vehicle does not have the same armor as a tank.

[It pains me that I have to type this next part…] Could that be because if it has as much armor as a tank it would SINK!?!?!

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.

Even so, Coffey said, the AAV “is a lightweight amphibious personnel carrier not intended to be a fighting vehicle or anything like a tank. It’s one of the more vulnerable vehicles on the battlefield.”

NEWS FLASH- Amphibious vehicles are not anything like a tank. Neither are Helicopters you idiot.

That assessment, from Coffey and others, was echoed by Army Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, deputy director for regional operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has held senior combat command in Iraq.

“Clearly the AAV does not offer the same protection as a tank,” Ham told reporters at the Pentagon.

Well, I was skeptical at first but not that they had 3 different people say it, I guess it must be true. An Amphibious vehicle does not have the same armor as a tank.

Damn those Marines for not putting an extra 30,000 pounds of armor on a vehicle they wanted to float.

When did it become written in stone that the only vehicle allowed in Iraq was a freaking Abrams tank? The AAV can take 155mm shell at near point blank range and they still float! If the media were in charge of military purchasing (Well OK if the media were in change of military purchasing we wouldn’t have a military…) If the media were in charge of military purchasing we would only buy one vehicle- the Abrams tank. Then when a few Abrams were destroyed in combat the media would try to buy something even heaver.

Humvees? Not enough armor! Amphibs? Not enough armor! They even knocked the Bradley’s for a while.

It’s just stupid. How are you going to move 25 people in Iraq? Use 13 Abrams? Then the media would bash the military for being wasteful. By (practicle) definition any vehicle designed to carry that many people cannot have the same armor as a front line tank. So what do we do? Not move 25 people? No, we use the best tool available.

It is an obvious tragedy that we lost 14 guys in one blast. Does that excuse this worthless reporting – um no.

(/rant mode)

]]>< ![CDATA[

And yes we all know where it is going. It’s Bush’s fault for using an Amphib. I say the only people allowed to complain about the equipment we have in inventory are the Senators and Congressman who argued IN FAVOR of a bigger military budget. What we will have instead is the same people who oppose military spending whining that we don’t have enough armored vehicles. Pathetic!

The military constantly tries to make multipurpose vehicles then when they are not all tanks everyone whines. (I thought I closed rant mode?!)

Sen. Corzine's Union Boss Lover Gets Paid
A clearly stated preference

16 Comments

  1. bullwinkle August 4, 2005
  2. GeoBandy August 4, 2005
  3. lawhawk August 4, 2005
  4. Al August 4, 2005
  5. Vanshalar August 4, 2005
  6. Alex Nunez August 4, 2005
  7. lawhawk August 4, 2005
  8. Alex Nunez August 4, 2005
  9. Mikey August 4, 2005
  10. red4der August 4, 2005
  11. McGehee August 4, 2005
  12. Alex Nunez August 4, 2005
  13. chad August 4, 2005
  14. Murdoc August 5, 2005
  15. Murdoc August 5, 2005
  16. Murdoc August 5, 2005