Comments on: Who Needs Door Kicking Marines

By: Nate

Nate — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:26:02 +0000

Take a good look at Grenada and you will see why we need a forced entry vehicle with a weapon mounted on it like that. Especially when those SEALs needed rescuing. Noting that the Inchon invasion was a Joint-Army-USMC invasion is not a good example. USMC led the way and the 7ID came after and then marginally advanced. The Marines drove straight into central Korea with violence of action — and didn’t stop. Then came ashore again at Hungnam. Additionally the 7ID also crumbled on the left flank at Chosin.

“The days of “Storming the beach” head are done.”

It never good to speak in absolute terms. The British learned this lesson in the Falklands. If you haven’t noticed the overwhelming majority of the world’s population will be within 100 miles of the coast in the coming decades. The sole reason for the limited western resistance in the first gulf war was because with had 40 parked amphibious ships off the coast of Kuwait.

The problem with Marines is that they are revolutionary by nature. Taking needs experimental ideas and turning them into standards. The Helicopter, Osprey, Harrier, and EFV are good examples.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:45:26 +0000

Dan Russ, If you think the Obama administration is doing anything more than cutting DOD to pay for socialism you are greatly mistaken. OMB is already asking for $60B out of DOD with no purpose other than realigning money out of DOD. On another note, I agree that we are not prepared to conduct an opposed landing now or ever again. We have been moving away from an opposed landing capability for over 30 years, mostly because our technology allows us to go where the enemy isn’t. The LCAC is a prime example in that it opens up 70% of the worlds beaches compared to 17% for displacement hull craft. We are going away from forced entry to Ship to Objective Maneuver (STOM). This concept was executed in the build up and sustainment of Forward Operating Base (FOB) Rhino, also known as Camp Rhino. It was supplied from L-ships mostly at night across Pakistani/Afgan. territoy at night, 70 tons at a time. This allowed the Army time to roll their stuff in from CONUS to take over the mission. The same was done in OIF where the 1st and 3rd Infantry Divsions were offloaded in Kuwait and Iraq using the LCAC and other Navy landing craft. The ability to put troops and material across any shore where needed in rapid manner is an essential national capability that cannot be abandoned for the purpose of funding new socialism (butter).

By: Zarniwoop

Zarniwoop — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 04:11:05 +0000

The Army did some of the amphibs. in the pacific too. My dad did 4 before a Jap sniper came within an inch of ending my existance. I suggest all of you watch, “Pentegon Wars”. If you haven’t seen it… it’s the story of the Bradley fighting vehicle. It’s was done in a funny way but is also very scary to see how much the Army was willing to cheat tests just to push it through.
Just as a BTW. I got to develop and operate a remote control for the AAV-7A1. It was for the testing of the CATFAE mine clearing system. Goto http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ENL498PTK8
for a video of CATFAE. You’ll notice at the begining the antennas for the remote system.

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:11:34 +0000

some of you guys just hate Obama. Who got us into this mess? Now, the truth is coming out about the Bush-no, actually it was the CHENEY Admin. Stick to the topic and respect the CINC. Damn…

By: SGT Wynn

SGT Wynn — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:13:41 +0000

Listen up gentlemen ‚for those who dont know we (USMC) use these AAV’s for more than ampfib assualts. Their use as troop carriers, anti-mine equipment, boats, mini-tanks and so much more!!
I personally used the AAV for a suprise river crossing to attack in Iraq ‚because the enemy did not think this big bulky tank-like thing floated. For those who have used the AAV know it is a very veristaile piece of gear that is very outdated.

My Marines need and want this piece of Gear.

Help us find ways to get it ‚not to kill the project. We Marines ask for very little in the grand skeem of things ‚we just want the right gear to help us win Wars!!!!!!!!!

By: Ross May

Ross May — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 01:56:36 +0000

The end of the Marines would be the end of the United States of America. The Marines are older than the United States of America, have served as Continental Marines. Harry Truman tried to end the Marines, making derisive statements about them after they had won the War in the Pacific. MacArthur certainly knew the value of the Marines. I think what endangers the Marines is that they are TOO good at what they do. I am an old Marine. Once a Marine, always a Marine. There are no ex-marines, only Marines.

By: Douglas Hawkins

Douglas Hawkins — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:35:21 +0000

I question why the Marines would even consider the use of an amphibious platform with today’s technology. Bottom line, Speed is what the marines need to remain as a viable force. This means Helicopter insertions and then a heavy Hitting back up landing force. The days of “Storming the beach” head are done.

By: Terrance McGowan

Terrance McGowan — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:36:44 +0000

The opponents of amphibious warfare might want to take a look at the possibility of a 2nd Korean War.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:21:10 +0000

SGT Wynn-I don’t care how much they cost, if you guy’s need them and they are effective, then it is our duty to get them for you. Cost?- so what! When I am President, I’ll get the money for you easily, I’ll get rid off WELFARE all together, that money alone will buy you plenty. I’ll go after a lot of the budget that is locked up in entitlements, which is over 60% of the budget. We get rid of this stupid nanny state, there will be PLENTY of money for defense!

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:56:51 +0000

I think Mr. Clarks article is mis-named. Do the country need “door kicker”? You bet…look at what’s going on in DAHANEH, Hemland Provence, Afghanistan today! Does the county need top notch amphibious capability you bet! All means of assault must be available for DOD’s use. Without amphibious capability how are we going to defend Taiwan and South Korea?

By: Do the right thing

Do the right thing — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:11:41 +0000

All you Obama haters need to remove the tinfoil from the inner linings of your hats. It’s blocking the thought control signals beamed out from secret CIA transmitters. You guys still retain your ability to think clearly and logically and thus are weakening Obama’s attemps to exercise complete control over our thought processes.

Help us Tinfoil Foil Wearer’s, you’re our only hope.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:57:46 +0000

Ill keep it short;

I have been a Marine infantryman for a long time. The Capabilities of the EFV gives me a hard on. Having those capabilities would open up an era of previously impossible tactics that would save lives even if it was made of paper. Bobbing in the ocean like a cork in the old AAV sucks on a level that if you haven’t been in one you just can’t imagine. One could almost watch them launch from a ship, go get lunch and come back in time for the landing. Now if I launched from OTH, who knows even where I would be landing. then to be able to shoot and move faster then their little technical’s could move.… I’m excited just thinking about it! ON the flip side, being at a senior level now I have gotten a taste of the greed, corruption and straight up BS that drives some of these contracts and it is not “the Marine’s best interest”. 10 million a pop, wow! that’s allot of damn money for the USMC; what about the other half we never seem to plan for? The time, money and Marines that will be needed to KEEP it operating like ten million bucks! not much good sitting in the back of the Motor Pool waiting for funds to replace the $10,000 start button (hypothetical scenario)
so much for keeping it short, I should have said:

EFV capabilities GOOD! Procurement procedures BAD, let get all the liars in the same room rm and have “come to jesus” meeting

By: boot

boot — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:35:41 +0000

We need the EFV to storm the beaches of Afghanistan!

By: ReconTeam

ReconTeam — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:59:13 +0000

Navy needs to be willing to get up closer and personal, that involves new ships, new missiles, new CIWS systems, and so on but this will all benefit the Navy in the long run. Meanwhile the USMC can develop a smaller EFV-ish vehicle with a capacity of one Marine squad (13 men) as opposed to 18, with built in active defense systems, and the ability to fit armor kits once on shore.

If the Chinese can do a small EFV clone we can do it better.

By: SGT Wynn

SGT Wynn — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:41:45 +0000

Dan Storm you go sit in one of those slow moving
AAV 3–5 miles off shore and see how it feels to be shot at with every thing they have while you are only moving basiclly 4 mph on water!! Then you can have the right to tell me what I dont need in COMBAT !!!! Remember you Dipstix I have BEEN THERE , DONE THAT and got my PURPLE HEART !!! What gives you or anyone else the right to tell me or any other MARINE we dont need it!!!!! And yall are worried about the cost?!? Okay so that right, me and my marines arnt worth any of the America’s tax dollors ‚WHATEVER!!! But its okay to spend money on CASH 4 CLUNCKERS, yeah glad to see everyones pioritys are strait!!!

By: Chief Houston

Chief Houston — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:35:04 +0000

SGT Wynn,

As you undoubtedly can see, we need your input
and your perspective of joint warfare and teamwork. There are alot of folks who have not seen the future perspective or operated at the tempo that current and future warfare demands.

I know because years ago I was being laughed at and called a war monger for wanting to work with the joint DOD concept. I studied Army flash cards, read Army combat manuals from my friends in Army INTEL,etc.. When an Ast. SECDEF appeared at a major NAVY League conference in Chicago, I posed written questions to him as to why we could not work together.

A strange thing started to permeate the air, all of a sudden we got SEABEE Combat manuals and I was tasked with being in charge of a detachment of U.S. Coastguardsmen that was sent to work with the SEABEES. The Navy asked me to write a short evaluation of our experience, simply put there was no reason, Always Prepared and Can DO cannot work together.

Next Army infantry manuals arrived and we were required to be competent up to E-7 Infantry level, next orders for Combat Training with the reinitiation of USMC Force Recon in Quantico, then training at Army bases, etc..

Now only Marines and Naval SPECOPS know how the USCG work in combined training at special missions arenas. You know why speed and effectiveness are critical since high levels are trust are demanded to operate at tempos that would make some old timers dizzy.

We will fight and live together and we will fight and die together, but the most important fight is that we are together!

Semper Paratus
Semper Fidelis
Molon Labe

By: Dan Storm

Dan Storm — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:01:41 +0000

OK, it’s time to think back and remember WHY the Marine Corps had to create a new amphbious vehicle for 21st Century. The Navy has put the Line of departure at 25 miles from the beach because of their need to have stand-off time to react to shore threats. If the navy solved their own problems instead of putting them on the Coprs, we could still be at 3–5 miles from the beach, wouldn’t need a “high-speed” assault vehicle and the AAV replacement wouldn’t cost millions of dollars. So, the Navy needs to work on it’s problem of delivering amphibious forces and then the Marines can get ashore without a high dollar DoD program…

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:39:47 +0000

SGT Wynn — God’s speed and Semper Fi! I have a good idea where you are coming from. I served in Lebanon and Grenada, we had Vietnam War surplus equipment and we had to make it work. Just about everything we had was Army hand-me-downs, yet we still did the job. I believe that we should be listening to you guys about what you need and if the equipment is any good or not. If you guys want it and you guys say it is good, we should get it for you now!

By: LTCSTAN

LTCSTAN — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:23:02 +0000

Never say never. History is full of such mistakes. Apparently our current crop of elistist leaders don’t read history. I guess they don’t undertand their main fuction is to PROVIDE for the common defense and not ensure that everyone gets their teeth cleaned.

By: SGT Wynn

SGT Wynn — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:17:28 +0000

I am former SGT Randy Wynn USMC, I served in the taking of Irag in 2003 and i was one of the “Door Kicking Marines” of Falluja Nov 2004.…. Now after stating this info.. I feel I can tell you gents that I have personally used the AAVP7A1 ‚AAV or also called the AMTRACK, in COMBAT more times than all of you have ever seen one !!!!!

YES WE NEED THE EFV!!!!!!!!!!!

The AAV was to slow 2 keepup with the Abrams M1
in 2003. That alone is enough reason. But I can give you countless reasons. The bottomline is WE AS AMPFIB CREWMEN WANT AND NEED THIS EFV!!!
It is the right piece of gear for us warfighers. It has 100 times the capabilaties then our AAV model.
The Army gets anything they want and most of the time they dont really need it , then they sell it to us (USMC) and we have to put it to good use. We the USMC Warfigher NEEDS this and DONT YOU BE THE ONE TO DEPRIVE US OF WHAT WE NEED!!!

You all can state all the history facts you want! But the real facts of history are made by Marines like me and my brothers in arms which does include ‚USAF,USN,USCG and the USArmy.

Thank you for your patriotism,
I got to go my Marines have a war to fight with outdated equipment.….