Comments on: Marines Don’t Want Their MTV

By: 0311

0311 — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 21:15:43 +0000

I deployed to iraq twice as a marine grunt in 07 and 09 with this flak. It really sucks at first but i did get used to it. My first deployment consisted of nothing but foot patrols and such. I rarely saw the inside of any vehicles. After youv walked a few hundred miles in the damn thing over a 7 month period, it doesnt even matter anymore. Granted your mobolity is still shot at times like going prone, getting out of prone, looking under vehicles, etc, but we have no say in anything so all you can do is grin a bear it. But like i said, you stop noticing how lame it is after a while. My view on the whole topic is just “whatever”. From what i understand, its all plate carriers now days. Must be nice.

By: earl

earl — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 02:55:04 +0000

cameras wouldn't necessarily be a BAD idea. It would be helpful for me as a motor t operator to be able to see where mabahbah jihaad is putting his ied, but it certainly wouldn't eliminate the necesity for body armor. But lets back up a couple steps. For starters, it would cost a lot more than you think to put a camera on every corner of every town. Then there's the fact that (and I think I speak for more that myself when I say this) I would definitely want a camera with better resolution than a cell phone camera. You may be impressed and brag about ur ten million what ever the **** megapixel camera, but at a distance it won't make out ****. Now on to the body armor aspect of it. What happens if one breaks? Power goes out/batteries die? The guy that has to change the batteries wil definitely want body armor. What happens if they see us putting up said cameras? Remember, we're fighting on THEIR territory and they ARE watching us. They could just as easily get to our cameras and tamper with/move/disable our cameras.. Now, as i'm driving my vehicle through marjah (what I hear is a hot city in afghanistan from the marines in my platoon that have deployed), i'm not getting any camera feed. I don't have a flack jacket or a kevlar because the comandant spent our money on cameras. Someone hits an ied and they're truck is down. First of all, we have to report the ied and put up a 360 degree perimiter 300 feet from it until the area is secure. So we can't just drive off. Then they start jumpin out with ak's and rpg's. No flacks and no kevlars equals casualties left and right. Now, say the cameras AREN'T down, but all the bad guys are hiding inside. We can't see them as we're rolling through. The first vehicle hits an ied and is destroyed and the last vehicle gets hit by an rpg and is destroyed. The lead and trace vehicles are usually security. Depending on how many security vics you have, if they go down the a-drivers would have to get out and lay down fire. Are you gettin the picture? Now I won't call you an idiot, because like I said, it's not necessarily a BAD idea. Just impractical and not well thought through. My guess is that ur either a civilian, or if ur in the military ur just boot as ****. Either way, if you don't have a good understanding of our sop's, you should probably either hold ur tongue, or think REALLY hard before you start posting on topics like this one.

By: theduck3531

theduck3531 — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:13:05 +0000

I’m not a big fan of the idea of atv usage. Mainly from the standpoint of sniper fire and ied’s. As for ur comment about more mobility than an mrap and more protection see the marine corps newest vehicle. The MATV.

By: theduck3531

theduck3531 — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:58:40 +0000

I think that Campbell is thinking that if u put put cameras up in a town in Iraq or Afghanistan u could police it like police in say in any city in the US. But
Hes just ignorant to the fact that our job in iraq and afghanistan is totally different than a police officers job on a street corner. Marines and other military services don’t go out and patrol an area for eight hours then go home at night and repeat the next day. That would be way too expensive and impractical for military personel to do.

By: theduck3531

theduck3531 — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:38:45 +0000

They aren’t even good for sitting in a vehicle. They are so bulky and heavy that in a warm climate you dehydrate very quickly due to sweating.

By: Mike Barrett

Mike Barrett — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:06:45 +0000

my mom threw out her back when she tried to pick up my FBR, and that’s without the 210rd full combat load, not to mention the grenades that i carry(thank god i don’t have a 203, then you add on grenades…).

By: Mike Barrett

Mike Barrett — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:05:13 +0000

So they send out a platoon or two to take these guys out. Unfortunately, the GIs don’t have any body armor at all, because their government so frivolously spent all that money on cell phone cameras to conduct surveillence. Now we’ve got a few dead soldiers to add on top of the “spent pile”, along with the money for the cameras (which were probably made in a foreign country, so no money for the common american laborer).

That sounds like a genius plan dude. If you are going to spout ideas like that without thinking them through, then you’re better off keeping your mouth shut, and letting the people who have been over there and had to deal with those retards do the thinking. This vest sticks and so does the army’s IOTV. We’d be better off with the [plate carriers the soldiers used to wear in DS. At least that stuff allowed your body to breathe.

By: Mike Barrett

Mike Barrett — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:05:04 +0000

Campbell,

let’s say the powers that be somehow get wind of your little plan and they test it out in let’s say, Kirkuk, Iraq. So they have thousands of cameras on every street corner and every alleyway. They see someone doing stupid stuff, for this purpose, loading a pair of 155mm Russian artillery rounds attatched to a washing machine timer with a 9v battery powersource.

Now what? They just sit there eating pop tarts and drinking Rip Its, appaled at the actions that these should-be civilized people are doing? So what, we just watch and let them do this, again and again.

By: Mike Barrett

Mike Barrett — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:53:02 +0000

true, the idea is to STOP the enemy from doing stupid things, not to watch and avoid them. The whole idea of a soldier is to KILL the enemy, not to avoid him.

By: USMC0369

USMC0369 — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:07:15 +0000

your a true idiot. yeah, no need for body armor as long as we have cameras at every corner…when was the last time a camera stopped a 7.62 bullet? Oh wait, I can see down this street because I am watching my little computer screen that displays what the cameral sees rather then looking around my area of operation. Good luck finding funds for your awesome idea haha.