# Marines From Iraq Sound Off About Want of Armor and Men



## Maritime_Matt (25 Apr 2005)

Don't know whether this belongs in Foreign Militaries or Current Affairs. Very interesting story in today's NY Times.

--

Marines From Iraq Sound Off About Want of Armor and Men
By MICHAEL MOSS 

Published: April 25, 2005

--

n May 29, 2004, a station wagon that Iraqi insurgents had packed with C-4 explosives blew up on a highway in Ramadi, killing four American marines who died for lack of a few inches of steel.

The four were returning to camp in an unarmored Humvee that their unit had rigged with scrap metal, but the makeshift shields rose only as high as their shoulders, photographs of the Humvee show, and the shrapnel from the bomb shot over the top.

"The steel was not high enough," said Staff Sgt. Jose S. Valerio, their motor transport chief, who along with the unit's commanding officers said the men would have lived had their vehicle been properly armored. "Most of the shrapnel wounds were to their heads."

Among those killed were Rafael Reynosa, a 28-year-old lance corporal from Santa Ana, Calif., whose wife was expecting twins, and Cody S. Calavan, a 19-year-old private first class from Lake Stevens, Wash., who had the Marine Corps motto, Semper Fidelis, tattooed across his back.

They were not the only losses for Company E during its six-month stint last year in Ramadi. In all, more than one-third of the unit's 185 troops were killed or wounded, the highest casualty rate of any company in the war, Marine Corps officials say.

In returning home, the leaders and Marine infantrymen have chosen to break an institutional code of silence and tell their story, one they say was punctuated not only by a lack of armor, but also by a shortage of men and planning that further hampered their efforts in battle, destroyed morale and ruined the careers of some of their fiercest warriors. 

The saga of Company E, part of a lionized battalion nicknamed the Magnificent Bastards, is also one of fortitude and ingenuity. The marines, based at Camp Pendleton in southern California, had been asked to rid the provincial capital of one of the most persistent insurgencies, and in enduring 26 firefights, 90 mortar attacks and more than 90 homemade bombs, they shipped their dead home and powered on. Their tour has become legendary among other Marine units now serving in Iraq and facing some of the same problems.

"As marines, we are always taught that we do more with less," said Sgt. James S. King, a platoon sergeant who lost his left leg when he was blown out of the Humvee that Saturday afternoon last May. "And get the job done no matter what it takes."

The experiences of Company E's marines, pieced together through interviews at Camp Pendleton and by phone, company records and dozens of photographs taken by the marines, show they often did just that. The unit had less than half the troops who are now doing its job in Ramadi, and resorted to making dummy marines from cardboard cutouts and camouflage shirts to place in observation posts on the highway when it ran out of men. During one of its deadliest firefights, it came up short on both vehicles and troops. Marines who were stranded at their camp tried in vain to hot-wire a dump truck to help rescue their falling brothers. That day, 10 men in the unit died.

Sergeant Valerio and others had to scrounge for metal scraps to strengthen the Humvees they inherited from the National Guard, which occupied Ramadi before the marines arrived. Among other problems, the armor the marines slapped together included heavier doors that could not be latched, so they "chicken winged it" by holding them shut with their arms as they traveled.

"We were sitting out in the open, an easy target for everybody," Cpl. Toby G. Winn of Centerville, Tex., said of the shortages. "We complained about it every day, to anybody we could. They told us they were listening, but we didn't see it."

The company leaders say it is impossible to know how many lives may have been saved through better protection, since the insurgents became adept at overcoming improved defenses with more powerful weapons. Likewise, Pentagon officials say they do not know how many of the more than 1,500 American troops who have died in the war had insufficient protective gear.

continues...
--
http://nytimes.com/2005/04/25/international/middleeast/25marines.html?hp&ex=1114488000&en=93b6d57bb86038e0&ei=5094&partner=homepage


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Apr 2005)

The Marines have always been a lighter force than the Army. They dont have anything like the Bradley. In an IED environment any armor is better than no armor.

In the design of future vehicles I think we shall see a V design to channel the blast out and away from vehicles. No more flat bottomed vehicles.


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Apr 2005)

http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2005/04/marines-of-company-e.html

Here is a bloggers view of the Times article.


----------



## wack-in-iraq (26 Apr 2005)

imagine if canada had sent people over to Iraq ? i am convinced the reason had nothing to do with UN disapproval, it would have cost way too much to give our troops decent gear.

if they are short of guys they should make it easier to join their army if you are from an allied country,(not that i consider canada an ally to the US anymore) i would have given my left nut to get into the marines over here. i asked a recruiter and basicly the whole process would have taken years..... i guess not much different from our army.


----------



## Spr.Earl (27 Apr 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Marines have always been a lighter force than the Army. They dont have anything like the Bradley. In an IED environment any armor is better than no armor.
> 
> In the design of future vehicles I think we shall see a V design to channel the blast out and away from vehicles. No more flat bottomed vehicles.


Yes Tommy but when it comes the scene to day should they not have the same?
What I mean is a Peace Keeping Force as the Army?


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Apr 2005)

The Marine Corps has a different mission than the Army, otherwise we could do away with one of them. The Marines are 
our first responders so to speak and are well equipped for intervening in a low intensity environment. The Army's forte is 
a high intensity threat - DS/OIF ect.


----------



## KevinB (27 Apr 2005)

The problem that is missed is like T-hawk said - the differing mission.

 Armoured Hummers are great - but not the be all and end all - same with out Iltis / Gwagon issues - both types are need for different roles - unfortunately now troops are required to do missions in setups that are not made for what they are doing.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (27 Apr 2005)

wack-in-iraq said:
			
		

> if they are short of guys they should make it easier to join their army if you are from an allied country,(not that i consider canada an ally to the US anymore) i would have given my left nut to get into the marines over here. i asked a recruiter and basicly the whole process would have taken years..... i guess not much different from our army.



I just want to shed some light on this for you.  The reason it would have taken years for you to be processed for the Marines is not because of a broken recruiting system.  Your hickup would have been at the immigration level.  Immigration takes forever to process claims.  On the recruiting side, theoretically speaking, if an applicant has nothing wrong with them and requires no waivers and passes the aptitude and medical exams, and there is a bed space available at boot camp, you could walk into the recruiting office on Monday and be shipped the following Monday.  It can happen that quick.  It took me a month and I had to get waivers and a whol bunch of stuff but once I signed my DEP contract, I was gone to boot camp a week later.  The average wait time is a couple of months.  Once you are a qualified applicant, you can pretty much choose the date you want to ship.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## PJ D-Dog (27 Apr 2005)

I think Matt Fisher needs to wade in on this discussion.  He was in Iraq last year with his Marine unit and I'm sure he could give us all some insight on this from first hand experience.  Matt, the floor is yours.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## pbi (4 May 2005)

> The Marines are
> our first responders so to speak and are well equipped for intervening in a low intensity environment.



Low intensity? And the gloves are off! Where is Matt???

Cheers.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (4 May 2005)

The Marine Corps is equipped and trained to operate in the 'full operational spectrum' from high intensity warfighting to humanitarian operations.

While not as mech. heavy as their Army brethren, the Iraq campaign illustrated how a force, such as the Marines can adapt its force structure to operate in a land campaign well inshore and do so effectively.   Interestingly, during the initial campaign into Iraq, it was the Army who overstretched their supply lines and caused the US forces to take an operational pause in order to resupply the 3rd ID. 

Now with that said, the Marine Corps does continue to focus on operations in littoral areas, where such actions can be supported by 'seabasing' a concept that places much of the Marine's logistical support aboard ship, rather than on land.   

However, this does not preclude the Marines from operating in other such areas, well away from the shorelines.

Afghanistan is a land-locked country and as such the Marines were able to send 2 MEUs which made up an Expeditionary Brigade into Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 and the advance into Iraq was the furthest from shore that the Marine Corps has ever operated.

The entire Marine Corps model is based around the concept of "expeditionary warfare" which tries to reduce the logistical footprint that is needed to conduct operations.  Additionally, the entire force structure is broken down into sections that can be transported by various means (either sea or airlift).

PBI can probably contribute a wealth more in this area given his experience at Quantico.

Now to touch on the armored vehicle issue.  The Marine Corps, like the other services, is having to deal with an unconventional threat that while talked about prior to the Iraq War, had very little funding and research devoted to it.  Now we've got troops in Iraq who face daily IED attacks and we're having to make up for it in very short time.  Alot of money and resources are going into uparmoring soft-skinned vehicles to provide a measure of protection against IEDs, however these things don't happen overnight.  There will be some troops that have to make due in the meantime.  It's the way life is.  Does it suck?  Very much so, but the missions assigned to those without uparmored vehicles still need to be accomplished.

When my unit operated in one of the most dangerous areas of Iraq, the so-called "Triangle of Death" (the towns southwest of Baghdad, Mahmudiyah, Yusifiyah and Latifiyah) while we had our LAV-25s to provide some protection against IEDs, none of our support vehicles (7 ton trucks, HMMWVs, etc.) had armor kits.  Did that stop us from employing these vehicles?  No, but it made you more cautious.  The missions assigned to us still had to be accomplished.

I would venture to say that the US has a Marine Corps because it wants to set a standard of military excellence that the Army can look up to and attempt to emulate.   ;D


----------



## Infanteer (4 May 2005)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I would venture to say that the US has a Marine Corps because it wants to set a standard of military excellence that the Army can look up to and attempt to emulate.     ;D



I thought that was what the Air Force was for?

Infanteer - Aim High


----------



## Matt_Fisher (4 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I thought that was what the Air Force was for?
> 
> Infanteer - Aim High





> New York Post
> April 13, 2005
> 
> Clashing Military Cultures
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 May 2005)

Infanteer=owned


----------



## Infanteer (5 May 2005)

Interesting article on the Air Force, Matt - reminds me of quote that I came across in some research I was doing regarding Service institutions:



> The air forces of the world see themselves as a decisive instrument of warfare, a strategy made possible and sustained by modern technology.  Since the airplane â â€œ a marvel of technology â â€œ gave birth to independent air forces, the air forces have always nurtured and applied technology.  The air force is extremely proud of its people, the professionalism of the institution and its crews, delighting the public with air shows and air demonstration teams to exhibit this pride.  Air force pilots often identify themselves with an airplane, even before the institution; some see themselves as pilots before officers.
> 
> Colonel J.P.Y.D. Gosselin, *Unification and the Strong-Service Idea: A 50-Year Tug of War of Concepts at Crossroads*; NSSC Paper



The part about identifying with a plane really stands out - this is why an Air Force that hasn't lost a fighter in air combat for over 50 years is running the most expensive procurement program in history to develop a fancy fighter to replace one that is still the best in the world.


----------



## pbi (9 May 2005)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> The Marine Corps is equipped and trained to operate in the 'full operational spectrum' from high intensity warfighting to humanitarian operations...
> 
> PBI can probably contribute a wealth more in this area given his experience at Quantico....
> 
> ...



"Wealth of experience"   ???   From books and sim-ex maybe. I graduated in 98 with a pretty good understanding of the Corps,(and a huge respect for Marines in general...) but that was seven years ago. You are the real expert as far as "doing the business" goes. And, based on what I saw in Afghanistan, I think the Army (at least some its Inf) is about to give the Corps a run for its money in tactical level ops. We'll see, I guess!

Cheers


----------

