I doubt even a armored Humvee, LAV or Stryker could have survived the blast discribed. The blast lifted and threw a 20 ton plus vehicle. In fact this sounds simialr to how terrorist took out at least two Israeli Merkava tanks so it would hav eproably taken out a Bradley and maybe an M-1. In this case I do not think armored protection was the issue. All that can be done to improve the durvivablliity fo the AAV has just about been done. The add on armor , etc has put increased strain on its suspension and increased maintenance and reduced mobility. Remember the primary function of this vehicle is to shore movement not mech combat. These vehicles are alos old and in need of replacement Nto only has the stress of operations takent heir toll but over timie corrision form slat water and air constantly attack the frames and parts. Marine Doctrine does not put sustained combat in places like Iraq as its first priority. Corps orgainization and equipment is built around the doctrine of forceable entry and 30 days of sustain combat by which time the Army is supposed to move in an take over. The Corps is your kick in the Door/Roof Force. The Corps is back in Iraq because the Army allegedly lacks the manpower so the Corps makes do with the equipment just like it did during Desert Storm and IOF. It would make little sense to equip hte Corps has second Army taking away its strategic mobility in the process.

You cannot make an everything proof vehicle M1 taken out by IED http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031029-m1-abrams.htm Israeli Merkava III destroyed by IED http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/628814/posts

I'd agree with Ambush that the size of the IED involved would have done damage to any military vehicle. From my understanding, two Marines were killed in the explosion, and the other 12 were killed from the flash fire that followed. The reality is that the SecDef is pushing the Marines from the amphibious only mission; I don't know how the AAV replacement that will be fielded in a few years will better protect Marines. In the near term, the solution against these more powerful IEDs will be to increase mobility assets (Buffalo, Husky, Meerkat) operated by engineers that specialize in route clearance missions, not trying to add armor packages that still won't be able to defeat a shaped charge IED that is detonated under the body of the vehicle or to switch to different vehicles that causes ripple effects in logistics support (parts, mechanics, fuel), manning requirement (more vehicle crews), and tactics (operating in larger convoys and more vehicles than they have trained for).

The new EFV will be protected all around against 14.5mm applique to defeat light cannons and RPGs is pretty likely I'd guess.

I believe I heard that the charges used were a stack of three anti-tank mines, however when I heard that the mines utilized a shape charge principle I wondered if the opposition had utilized shape charges utilized by engineers and demolition teams. These charges were sometimes used to dig holes quickly and the concave portion of the charge would be pointed down not up as was the case in this instance.

This is not the first use of triple-stacked AT mines. From conversations with Marines returning from the Iraqi-Syrian border, this technique has been used for some time. It was extremely unfortunate for us that they managed to hit a loaded AAV.

The Afghans also stacked AT mines for use against Soviet Tanks. The mines they were supplied with (US M-15s & M-19s maybe?) lacked enough punch against Soviet Tanks. The US has not developed a new conventional mine for many decades. The Italians use to make the best modern mines of this type (althought the UK and France had a couple of good ones) while we concentrated on scatterable mines. The closest thing we have to a MODERN conventional (hand emplaced} mine would be the M-2 SLAM. I doubt they would stack shape charge mines. The purpose of stacking the mines would to increase the blast effect. If they were shaped charges, or even plater types like the US M-21, without some type of delay or standoff the cutting effect of one mine would be disrupted by the blast of the mine above it. You have to figure that those mines went of almost simultanously. Iraq had a lot of Italian made AT mines and probabaly some Soviet/Warsaw pact ones as well. The amount of explsives would vary with the model of mine but figure on at least 10 lbs to 20 lbs of main charge explosives per mine so 3 togther would give you 30lbs to 60lbs of explosives. No small amount.