Well, we just lost 14 Marines when one AAV was destroyed by an IED. I don't know why we don't equip our Marines with Bradleys as long as the Marines are fighting away from the shore just like Army troops. I know that the Bradleys carry far fewer troops than the AAV so adjusting tactics might make this a non-starter (and the Marines might not want the TOWs), but AAVs designed to shuttle troops from ship to shore are just not up to facing modern anti-armor weapons.
I try hard to remember that we really have been lucky--or good at our tactical employment--that we've had few high casualty hits like this.
And Strategypage provides some perspective as well:
The battle against roadside bombs in Iraq largely goes on behind the scenes. But it’s being won. American combat deaths in the last six months are a third lower than for the previous six months. July combat deaths were 30 percent lower than June. There’s no one factor making this happen.
Better armor, tactics, training, cooperation from Iraqis, and technology all contribute.
I hope the AAV replacement is far better protected. This is what it is supposed to be:
The AAAV’s unique capabilities will include: (1) over three times the water
speed of the current AAV; (2) the ability to defeat future threat light armored
vehicles; (3) land mobility equal to or greater than the M1A1 tank; (4)
significantly enhanced survivability features; (5) effective command and control
with subordinate, adjacent, and higher units; and (6) NBC protection for both
the crew and embarked personnel.
Hunters. Not hunted. But I need perspective, too. That the occasional bad day like this strikes me as a disaster shows how well we are doing. And the situation improves, too.
