# Soldiers not allowed to wear commercial body armor **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 17, 2006, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377 "2006-01-17T17:41:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/1 "2006-01-17T17:41:51Z")
[Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Dragon Skin or Lose SGLI Death Benefits](http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpDefense&htmlCategoryID=30&htmlId=4514) Not only will the administration not BUY the soldiers body armor, they won’t even allow them to wear the armor they bought themselves. What the fuck is going on? Erek ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/2 "2006-01-17T17:50:00Z")
[ > [@](#): > > Currently nine U.S. generals stationed in Afghanistan are reportedly wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin body armor, according to company spokesman Paul Chopra. ]([http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpDefense&htmlCategoryID=30&htmlId=4514](http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpDefense&htmlCategoryID=30&htmlId=4514)) Rank has it’s privileges! :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/3 "2006-01-17T17:55:39Z")
OK, this is just…insane. I can’t think of a rational reason why they wouldn’t be allowed. I loved this quote; > [@](#): > > Last week DefenseWatch released a secret Marine Corps report that determined that 80% of the 401 Marines killed in Iraq between April 2004 and June 2005 might have been saved if the Interceptor OTV body armor they were wearing was more effective. The Army has declined to comment on the report because doing so could aid the enemy, an Army spokesman has repeatedly said. I despise this old standby excuse. “OMG! Nothing bad can be said about the army (even though that information is already out there) because the enemy will KNOW BAD THINGS! (even though that information is already out there).” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/4 "2006-01-17T17:57:36Z")
Is there **any** charitable interpretation of their actions? Any interpretation that is more charitable than that this is an attempt to protect some bureaucrat’s reputation by forcing soldiers to wear the armor he decided they ought to wear? The only thing I can think of is that perhaps there’s some legitimate controversy over which armor is more effective; as such, if the military sincerely believes their armor is more effective than Dragonskin, they might want soldiers to wear theirs instead of Dragonskin in order to keep the soldiers alive and they might not trust the soldiers to make this determination. Does anyone know whether there’s a legitimate controversy over this matter? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/5 "2006-01-17T18:05:39Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] Not only will the administration not BUY the soldiers body armor . . ./QUOTE] You sure that’s a factual statement? In your own link it says: > [@](#): > > Recently Dragon Skin became an item of contention between proponents of the Interceptor OTV _body armor generally issued to all service members deploying in combat theaters_ and its growing legion of critics. Sounds to me like the guys who need it most are getting it. More than a little late for a number of dead soldiers, of course, but body armor **is** being issued. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/6 "2006-01-17T18:12:03Z")
Just one possibility I can come up with on this prohibition. When I was in the Army, they discouraged or prohibited use of some private-purchase equipment because it didn’t integrate and function well with issue equipment. Whether that is the case with this armor or not, I can’t say. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/7 "2006-01-17T18:12:13Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > … In your own link it says: > > > [@](#): > > > > Recently Dragon Skin became an item of contention between proponents of the Interceptor OTV body armor generally issued to all service members deploying in combat theaters and its growing legion of critics. > > Sounds to me like the guys who need it most are getting it. More than a little late for a number of dead soldiers, of course, but body armor **is** being issued. > [@](#): > > Recently Dragon Skin became an item of contention between proponents of the Interceptor OTV body armor generally issued to all service members deploying in combat theaters and its growing legion of critics. Critics of the Interceptor OTV system say it is ineffective and inferior to Dragon Skin, as well as several other commercially available body armor systems on the market. Any good reason ya didn’t quote the next sentence? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/8 "2006-01-17T18:15:35Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Any good reason ya didn’t quote the next sentence? Well, of course there was: he was addressing **mswas** ’s specific claim that “the administration not BUY the soldiers body armor.” The next sentence did nothing to support this claim; the sentence he quoted clearly refutes the claim. The question remains whether the military is acting properly or even excusably here, but I think **Unclebeer’s** quibble is perfectly legit: it’s not a question of not buying armor, but rather of requiring the use of a certain sort of armor that some folks claim is inferior. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/9 "2006-01-17T18:17:22Z")
Actually, this makes a lot of sense to me. The life insurance on a soldier is a benefit. If a soldier takes personal responsibility for his/her protection on the field and dies, then the army could certainly question whether or not the soldier would have died had he/she been wearing offically-issued garb. Sort of a ‘not liable if not used as directed’ kind of thing. ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/10 "2006-01-17T18:28:38Z")
It reminds me of how sailors on WW2 submarines forbidden to modify their torpedoes, which (of course) was the only way they could get them to work. Also, weren’t soldiers in WW1 issued a much inferior rifle so the more effective rifle (read: it wouldn’t jam after one shot, and could withstand mud - very important in trenches) would not fall into German hands? It’d be funny, if the punchline didn’t involve bodybags. ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/11 "2006-01-17T18:30:33Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Actually, this makes a lot of sense to me. > > The life insurance on a soldier is a benefit. If a soldier takes personal responsibility for his/her protection on the field and dies, then the army could certainly question whether or not the soldier would have died had he/she been wearing offically-issued garb. > > Sort of a ‘not liable if not used as directed’ kind of thing. I know the USPS has similar regulations about proper USPS-approved footwear and potential to not get workman’s comp (or something like that, it’s been a while since my postal worker husband has explained it to me) if a postal worker is wearing non-standard footwear and is injured on the job at the time. Nevermind that the postal workers almost universally agree that 90% of their footwear options are crap overpriced shoes/boots that wear out in a few months, and the remaining 10% are good but extremely expensive. This leaves them with the option of blowing their alloted uniform budget on shoes, or buying shoes elsewhere that are quality and comfortable - but beware if they get injured. It’s the government, basically. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/12 "2006-01-17T18:31:20Z")
[Isn’t this already under discussion](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=352947)? ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/13 "2006-01-17T18:32:47Z")
> [@Maus Magill](#): > > Also, weren’t soldiers in WW1 issued a much inferior rifle so the more effective rifle (read: it wouldn’t jam after one shot, and could withstand mud - very important in trenches) would not fall into German hands? No, US soldiers were issued the 1903 Springfield and the 1917 Enfield, both good reliable bolt-action rifles. The BAR was, supposedly, with held from issue for the reason you cite; but it is more of a light machinegun than rifle. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/14 "2006-01-17T18:36:24Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > [Isn’t this already under discussion](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=352947)? This does seem to be a different angle on it (the Dragonskin angle). However, I’m glad you linked to it, because **Scylla’s** recounting of his catpture by Nazis has me giggling uncontrollably. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![The\_Mad\_Hermit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b5ac83/32.png) [@The\_Mad\_Hermit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Mad_Hermit)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/15 "2006-01-17T18:36:34Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > No, US soldiers were issued the 1903 Springfield and the 1917 Enfield, both good reliable bolt-action rifles. The BAR was, supposedly, with held from issue for the reason you cite; but it is more of a light machinegun than rifle. Also, they were issued the [Chauchat machine gun](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauchat), because American generals feared that the BAR would get into enemy hands. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/16 "2006-01-17T18:43:19Z")
If they take off their body armor, they will get the SGLI benifit, well, their next of kin will get it. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/17 "2006-01-17T18:46:15Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > No, US soldiers were issued the 1903 Springfield and the 1917 Enfield, both good reliable bolt-action rifles. The BAR was, supposedly, with held from issue for the reason you cite; but it is more of a light machinegun than rifle. [ > [@](#): > > It was designed in 1917 by the weapons designer John Browning primarily as a replacement for, and improvement on, the French-made Chauchat and Hotchkiss M1909. It was originally intended as a light automatic rifle, but spent much of its career in various guises used as a light machine gun with a bipod. The first version was, and remains the lightest service machine gun to fire .30-06 Springfield, but its 20-round magazine tended to hamper its use as a light machine gun. > > Despite its name, it was adopted in 1917 — it used the 1918 designation in order to avoid confusion with the M1917 machine gun. > > First issued in February 1918, it was hoped the BAR might help break the stalemate of the trenches by the concept of “marching fire”; an automatic weapon accompanying advancing squads of riflemen rushing from trench to trench. BAR gunners were issued a belt that held magazine pouches along with a “cup” to support the stock of the rifle when held at the hip. This allowed the soldier to lay suppressive fire while walking forward, keeping the enemy’s head down until it was too late. Eighty-five thousand of these were built by the war’s end, though the gun saw little action due to the war’s early end, its first action being in September of 1918. ]([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning\_Automatic\_Rifle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_Automatic_Rifle))I don’t think you can say it was withheld from issue! aaa ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/18 "2006-01-17T18:48:34Z")
Just to play devils advocate, there are legitimate reasons why the Army might forbid the use of commercial body armor. It could be heavier or bulkier. It might wear out more quickly. It could be less flexible. There could be compatibility issues with equipment. The point is that the Army doesn’t know if it is in fact better than their issued equipment so better off just forbidding all non-issued equipment. To take the argument to it’s most logical extreme, say some soldier decides to wear a big bulky home made Kevlar bear suit that he can barely walk in? And how “inferior” is the Army body armor? How many lives would have been saved if they had switched brands? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/19 "2006-01-17T19:00:13Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Sounds to me like the guys who need it most are getting it. More than a little late for a number of dead soldiers, of course, but body armor **is** being issued. The point is they waited until after the soldiers paid $ 6000 for body armor then FINALLY started issuing body armor, and told them they couldn’t use the other armor. Also, according to the article, the Marine testing says the Interceptor OTV isn’t that great. There could be compatibility issues with certain standard issue military equipment, but I am leaning more toward the lobbyists that represent the manufacturer of the Interceptor OTV protecting their profit margin. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Rodd\_Hill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3ab097/32.png) [@Rodd\_Hill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rodd_Hill)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/20 "2006-01-17T19:51:37Z")
**Maus Magill** said: > [@](#): > > Also, weren’t soldiers in WW1 issued a much inferior rifle so the more effective rifle (read: it wouldn’t jam after one shot, and could withstand mud - very important in trenches) would not fall into German hands? You may be thinking of the Canadian-made [Ross Rifle](http://www.collectionscanada.ca/firstworldwar/05180104/0518010403_e.html), an excellent target rifle, but jammed easily under field conditions. It came along with an entrenching shovel that was supposed to double as a gun-shield. Since it had a hole in it for the rifle to fit through, it wasn’t a success as a shovel, and it was too small to be an effective shield. [MacAdam shovel](http://www.collectionscanada.ca/firstworldwar/05180104/051801040301_e.html). [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377.md?page=2)