# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![GWVet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/65b543/32.png) [@GWVet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GWVet)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/41 "2006-01-18T02:29:49Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > Is this a sick marketing pitch being made by Dragon Skin? First I’ve heard of them, and the web page linked to has only 5 articles, and 2 of them are against OTV. That was my first thought - I figured maybe it was a “press release” floated by someone from Pinnacle Armor (did you notice how prominently the Dragon Skin logo featured on the page?). After some poking around I was able to find a story on the PBS web site from the MacNeil/Lehrer show about the Dragon Skin vs OTV issue, but nothing else that corroborates any detail mentioned in that article. All I was able to find was evidence that some people think that Dragon Skin is better than OTV - nothing about soldiers being ordered not to wear Dragon Skin. Some further looking revealed that the site on which the article appears was created by the late David Hackworth - not exactly what I would consider a reputable source of journalism. The thing that got my BS detector buzzing a bit was the thing about benefits. I know a lot may have changed since my service, but as I recall it, when service personnel are given orders they are required to obey them. The consequences for not doing so are punishment for violating Article 92 of the UCMJ. > [@](#): > > 1. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION > Any person subject to this chapter who– > (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation; > (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or > (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; > shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. Enforcement and punishment is at the discretion of the person’s chain of command, although the accused has the right to request a Genral Court Martial instead of non-judicial punishment (not a good idea in most cases). The military, is not in the habit of using withholding of benefits as a stick to enforce regulations. So to me, the crucial element of this article is not whether the Army is threatening to not pay SGLI benefits (and FWIW I doubt if that is even up to the Army - I believe a soldier would have to be court martialed posthumously and dishonorably discharged to lose the SGLI benefit), the crucial issue to me is whether or not such an order exists, and if so - under whose authority? The quoted article does not say what question was asked of the Army. If the question that the Army PAO was asked was “have our soldiers been ordered not to wear Dragon Skin body armor at the risk of SGLI benefits?”, then I can’t understand how that is relevant to operational security. On the other hand, if the question was “why are our soldiers wearing OTV and not Dragon Skin?”, then I can understand how those details could compromise operational security. The military often refuses to provide details which could aid the enemy but they rarely refuse to discuss a policy issue on those grounds. At the very least, if the article had quoted an Army PAO and named what command the representative was from, it might lend some credibility to the story. Apart from the fact that there is a question of whether OTV is better suited for Iraq than Dragon Skin or not, I couldn’t find any corroboration at all. My gut feeling is that it’s at best a wildly exaggerated urban legend passed along by “barracks lawyers” who don’t want to be quoted. It gets taken at face value because it is exactly what the anti-war crowd wants to believe. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/42 "2006-01-18T03:37:23Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Sadly, I think that both of you are on to something. > > The soldiers raising the stink are Special Operations types. These people live, breathe, and eat the fine art of effectively wreaking death and destruction upon the enemy while coming back alive to do it again another day (a dead “Hero” just leaves you a slot to fill in your TO&E). I think that their opinion of effective combat body armor should count for lot. > > If the Snake Eaters say that DragonSkin is the shizznit, it’s as good as Gospel to me. > > _And_ since the Powers That Be continue to wring their hands and “study in committee” the entire Body Armor Issue (its effectiveness, and its notable lack upon the bodies of our men and women in uniform in harm’s way), I think that that alone is worthy of some kick-ass Congressional Hearings and the Heads Upon Pikes of an aircraft carrier-sized boatload of Generals, and possibly some lengthy prison sentences should “financial irregularities” come to light regarding said General’s bank accounts and the disbursements made by a certain manufacturer and supplier of body armor for our armed forces. Not sure about all this. Members of certain Special ops teams have the greatest freedom of anyone in uniform when it comes to their own equipment, they can even go out with Russian weapons and such, anything they need to complete their mission. They’re one group that typically doesn’t have to deal with the BS that the rest of the military does. I’m not sure what type of “special forces” we’re talking about. Technically the U.S. Army Rangers are called special forces, but they don’t have the sort of latitude equipment-wise that the real black-ops types ala the SEALs and Delta Force (or Task Force 21 or whatever it’s called in Iraq) have. And at the same time in my experience special forces guys have always gone for less body armor, not more. Stealth and mobility is the top on their list of priorities. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/43 "2006-01-18T05:35:07Z")
Sorry it took so long to get here. When I read the linked article the needle on my BS meter pegged with such force that it broke the glass lens, and I have been sweeping up broken glass. > [@](#): > > The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action. So just where on the in the SGLI policy is this exclusion that if you are wearing non-reg body armor the life insurance is void? Can somebody quote the section and wording? Look life insurance is really simple, the service man /woman pays a premium. If they die it pays. Doesn’t matter if they die from a bullet, an IED, a hummer accident, or if a fucking meteor hits their tent. If they check out the government writes a check. If there was such an exclusion don’t you think it might be listed on the [SGLI page on the VA website?](http://www.insurance.va.gov/sgliSite/SGLI/SGLI.htm) Or maybe that such an exclusion might be mentioned at WWW.army.mil? Or maybe mentioned by by [General Richard A. Cody](http://www.army.mil/leaders/leaders/vcsa/testimony/20050201.html) in his remarks to the house armed services committee? Maybe we can get **Airman Doors** to stop by and read us his SGLI policy. ---
**Author:** ![Tripler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripler/32/21807_2.png) [@Tripler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tripler)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/44 "2006-01-18T14:38:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Soldiers not allowed to wear commercial body armor FWIW, this morning I recieved a daily bulletin of the “goings on” around here, and as well as I really want to go see Billy Blanks host a Tae Bo workout, the Thursday Night “Reimbursement for Commercially procured Armor” seminar caught my eye. That’s why I opened this thread. So, I read the article in the OP. But after reading the article, this quote caught my eye. > [@](#): > > The soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported that their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action. IF this is true (note, that’s a big “if”), this strikes me as: A) A gross misinterpretation by their “commander” (who could range anywhere from a commissioned officer to a higher-ranking NCO) and/or B) Somebody dun fuck’d up and didn’t read the fine print correctly before barking orders on the stuff. Basically, I’m with **Rick** , in that I left my BS waders at home. . . The article in question is too vague for me to figure out exactly what is going on, but for reference, here’s the [DD Form 2902](http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/eforms/dd2902.pdf) for gettin’ yer dollar back for your own-bought personal protective equipment (to include vests). There were, and currently are, programs to reimburse you for your purchases because the Army (not the Air Force thankfully) supply systems just couldn’t provide them fast enough–but they realized the market could. Tripler Whoa! Lookit that! I’ve never hit a “10.4” BSM rating on a 1-10 scale before. . . ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/45 "2006-01-18T15:28:51Z")
What’s all this not compatable with current equipment bullshit I keep hearing? It’s a friggin vest! ---
**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 18, 2006, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/46 "2006-01-18T15:34:36Z")
> [@GWVet](#): > > That was my first thought - I figured maybe it was a “press release” floated by someone from Pinnacle Armor (did you notice how prominently the Dragon Skin logo featured on the page?). After some poking around I was able to find a story on the PBS web site from the MacNeil/Lehrer show about the Dragon Skin vs OTV issue, but nothing else that corroborates any detail mentioned in that article. This is very interesting, and I am ashamed that it didn’t even occur to me that this could be a hoax. I’ll withhold judgment until more information comes out, then, and thanks for pointing out weaknesses in the story! Daniel ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/47 "2006-01-18T15:37:38Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I think the problem is that you don’t understand the issue I am raising. The issue I am raising is that the body armor they are issuing is inferior. I know it, the Army knows it and the Marines know it. Ah, I see. You quoted me to address an issue to which I’m not speaking at all. Geez, I can’t understand how I was confused. > [@mswas](#): > > Is it ok to speak in conversational tones like EVER? I mean I DID correct myself and all. I didn’t even need Daniel to explain what you meant for me, I got it all by myself before I saw his clarification. First, I did not intend anything in my original remarks to be, like, confrontational. I may have been a bit gruff, but I did not intend to provoke you. My, like, apologies, dude. Second, I’m not seeing a post where you, like, “corrected yourself and all.” Mebbe you could, like, point me to it. See, now I am trying to goad you. Get the difference? And much thanks to Tripler for providing us some with some actual facts from the front lines; Stinkpalm, too, for firing up his BS meter and getting an accurate reading. This whole thing appears to be a non-issue. ---
**Author:** ![Tripler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripler/32/21807_2.png) [@Tripler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tripler)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/48 "2006-01-18T15:41:01Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > This is very interesting, and I am ashamed that it didn’t even occur to me that this could be a hoax. I’ll withhold judgment until more information comes out, then, and thanks for pointing out weaknesses in the story! > > Daniel You know, I ran off to the shower after I posted, and the first thing that popped into my mind: someone in the industry is sponsoring this article to hurt sales of the Dragon body armor. Like a printed lobby, with a hook to those who might want to believe this to happen. I’m seriously speculating it’s just hyped advertising. . . Tripler I don’t see a bobber in the water. They must be using a spooner. ---
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/49 "2006-01-18T17:00:18Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > What’s all this not compatable with current equipment bullshit I keep hearing? It’s a friggin vest! Well, in the best traditions of tah intarwebs I’m not going to let the small matter of not knowing jack shit about the subject stop me from speculating, so here goes. By the sounds of it these vests rely on hard plates inserted into the ‘vest’ as well as on the ‘vest’ itself. So straight away one might speculate that the plates for one vest might not be compatible with the plates for another, which straight away will make life a bit more complicated for the poor peon in charge of Keeping Shit Organised. Ditto for all and any accessories. “Here’s the woobury clip and didgery-doo buckle for your vest, along with a replacement plate for the one that got broken by that mortar shrapnel” “No no no! This is all METRIC! My vest is in INCHES”. Or it might be in the wrong shade of green and clash with the decor or have a non-standard smell or dissolve when smeared with standard issue rifle lube or something equally bizarre. Stranger things have happened in armies. ---
**Author:** ![Tripler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripler/32/21807_2.png) [@Tripler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tripler)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/50 "2006-01-18T17:23:28Z")
> [@slaphead](#): > > By the sounds of it these vests rely on hard plates inserted into the ‘vest’ as well as on the ‘vest’ itself. So straight away one might speculate that the plates for one vest might not be compatible with the plates for another, which straight away will make life a bit more complicated for the poor peon in charge of Keeping Shit Organised. Ditto for all and any accessories. You’re absolutely right. The kevlar fabric layers are there for larger, slower moving pieces like shrapnel. The ceramic panels are there for the smaller, faster pieces like bullets. Some plates may, some plates may not work in other manufacturer’s vests. > [@](#): > > “Here’s the woobury clip and didgery-doo buckle for your vest, along with a replacement plate for the one that got broken by that mortar shrapnel” > “No no no! This is all METRIC! My vest is in INCHES”. Substitute “vest” for “interior wall” and “replacement plate” with “panel of sheetrock” and you sound _exactly_ like one of my carpenters. 😃 Tripler No, really, I hear this sort of shit on a daily basis. . . about buildings, tho. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/51 "2006-01-18T18:33:16Z")
> [@slaphead](#): > > Well, in the best traditions of tah intarwebs I’m not going to let the small matter of not knowing jack shit about the subject stop me from speculating, so here goes. > > By the sounds of it these vests rely on hard plates inserted into the ‘vest’ as well as on the ‘vest’ itself. So straight away one might speculate that the plates for one vest might not be compatible with the plates for another, which straight away will make life a bit more complicated for the poor peon in charge of Keeping Shit Organised. Ditto for all and any accessories. > “Here’s the woobury clip and didgery-doo buckle for your vest, along with a replacement plate for the one that got broken by that mortar shrapnel” > “No no no! This is all METRIC! My vest is in INCHES”. > > Or it might be in the wrong shade of green and clash with the decor or have a non-standard smell or dissolve when smeared with standard issue rifle lube or something equally bizarre. Stranger things have happened in armies. Thanks, I hadn’t thought of all those things. ---
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/52 "2006-01-30T18:07:10Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > Thanks, I hadn’t thought of all those things. In the unlikely event that anyone is interested, I came across this article which is a bit oddly formatted at the top but skims the issue before repeating a memo on this subject which was apparently circulated within the special operations bureaucracy. [http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpDefense&htmlCategoryID=30&htmlId=4653](http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpDefense&htmlCategoryID=30&htmlId=4653) Woo! I was right! ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/53 "2006-01-30T18:36:08Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > And I served for over 20 years, and for a large portion of those there were democrat congresses and democrat Presidents. I saw little change at all based on who was in power. The point you are making is, I believe, “this kind of inefficient stupidity is endemic to the military system, and has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats, so why are people turning this into a partisan issue?”. Well, there’s certainly quite a bit of justification for that position, but there are two important points: (1) The military may have had this body armor problem (or other similar issues) for the past 20 years, but it is only now that we’ve gotten involved in this war in Iraq that it really matters and is really racking up body counts (2) The current administration certainly does not SEEM to particularly care. When these issues of humvee and body armor started coming up, Bush could have gotten on TV and basically said “this is a horrible problem, and I’m doing X, Y and Z to make sure that every last possible option is explored ASAP, and it rips my very soul to shreds to know that I’m responsible for sending these young men into danger, and I’m personally appointing Mr. W to cut through all the bureaucracy and make sure this happens immediately”. But nothing of that sort happened. Maybe Bush IS devoting incredible amounts of effort to solving this problem. But if so, why don’t we know about it? ---
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/54 "2006-02-01T12:46:13Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > “this is a horrible problem, and I’m doing X, Y and Z to make sure that every last possible option is explored ASAP, and it rips my very soul to shreds to know that I’m responsible for sending these young men into danger, and I’m personally appointing Mr. W to cut through all the bureaucracy and make sure this happens immediately”. But nothing of that sort happened. Maybe Bush IS devoting incredible amounts of effort to solving this problem. But if so, why don’t we know about it? Errr - what? It’s now the responsibility of the President to deal personally with every last little detail of the day-to-day running of a war? **Martin Hyde** s point was, if I have understood it correctly, that the military establishment has always displayed a distressing tendency to generate shortages of key equipment in the midst of plenty. The fact that the Pentagon will always occasionally deliver 10,000 spoons when you desperately need a knife is just One Of Those Things™ that goes to make the GIs life an endless series of small delights. I don’t think FDR made a point of mentioning in his radio chats ‘I hear that our troops defending Bastogne are short of food, ammunition and winter clothing and are suffering additional casualties as a result, but I’m getting daily updates on that and have made it a priority to get it fixed’, and similarly JFK or whoever didn’t spend a huge amount of time publicly agonizing over the fact that GIs were getting killed in Vietnam because their rifles jammed with frightening regularity. That’s not the presidents job. They give the Pentagon lots of money and a war to fight, and the Pentagon gets on with it. If the Pentagon can spend $1Bn per day or whatever and not find enough loose change to buy body armour to protect their own key assets, that’s the Pentagon’s fuckup. Having a geriatric blinker-wearing ideologue as SecDef doesn’t help, but thats slightly different. Anyhow, this is all well off-topic - it seems to have been established that irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the overall armour situation, the situation in the OP didn’t actually happen. PR strikes again - muddying the waters since whenever it was first invented. ---
**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:** [February 1, 2006, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/55 "2006-02-01T13:40:50Z")
> [@slaphead](#): > > …I don’t think FDR made a point of mentioning in his radio chats 'I hear that our troops defending Bastogne are short of food, ammunition and winter clothing and are suffering additional casualties as a result… Errr…you mean the Battle of Bastogne? Where, [ > [@](#): > > …Though the American forces were **cut-off from their supply line** ,…and **unable to be resupplied or supported by air due to** some of the worst winter **weather** in years… ]([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Bastogne](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bastogne)),and > [@](#): > > … **When the** winter **weather** finally **cleared** , Allied **planes** rushed in to restore aerial superiority, and **delivered** much-needed **supplies** of food and ammunition **to the division** … ? (Bold=CMC) If FDR had the ability to change the weather by presidential decree, then this example might be relevant. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/56 "2006-02-01T15:07:53Z")
> [@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. Agreed. There are a number of reasons for not allowing people to supply their own equipment. Without rigorous testing there is no way knowing that the armor is effective. Ther military also makes it a violation of regulation to get civilian medical treatement. You could go to Sloan-Kettering for treatment and it would still be a violation. ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/57 "2006-02-01T15:42:52Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > They were completely unauthorized, and everyone, from Armor Division Commanding Generals down to Privates right outta Basic bought 'em and wore 'em. I’m not Over There (w’alhamd lallah!) so I can’t really say what the sitch is on the ground, but if this is the same Army I served in then I don’t fear for the soldiers who have already plunked their money on some armor they can live and work with. Because there’s The Regs, and then there’s what your command chooses to see. And since it is a very poor commander indeed who is more concerned with regs than the safety and effectiveness of his unit, I just don’t foresee any “Sgt. Small! Get that non-reg armor off right now and report to the commander for your article 15!” Nope. Just don’t see it happening. And I don’t foresee any Army surgeons blowing the whistle after treating a massive blodshock to the chest from a bullet that should have defeated the standard issue armor and could only have been stopped by an unauthorized private purchase. ---
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/58 "2006-02-01T18:45:23Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Errr…you mean the Battle of Bastogne? > > Where, > [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Bastogne],and? (Bold=CMC) > If FDR had the ability to change the weather by presidential decree, then this example might be relevant. Hmm. The German counteroffensive began on 16 December and was over by Jan 28. To my non-military mind it would seem that if troops in Northern Europe don’t have winter clothing issued and in their knapsacks by 16 Dec, then someone has very seriously fucked up. Perhaps the army had a million sets of quilted down-filled long johns all ready to issue on the 17 Dec and their plans were rudely upset by the Germans, but I doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/59 "2006-02-01T19:39:43Z")
I think it’s a scam. " Two deploying soldiers and a concerned mother reported …" If it was a printed Order, someone would be able to show said Order or link to it. There is also NO FUCKING WAY that wearing non-standard armor- or even no armor at all- would lose you ANY benefits. This more or less proves it’s a scam. I don’t doubt that somewhere there is some sort of general rule about wearing only approved equiptment. But this is entirely different. I call BULLSHIT until I see a reputable cite. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2006, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377/60 "2006-02-01T23:34:05Z")
> [@slaphead](#): > > Hmm. The German counteroffensive began on 16 December and was over by Jan 28. To my non-military mind it would seem that if troops in Northern Europe don’t have winter clothing issued and in their knapsacks by 16 Dec, then someone has very seriously fucked up. Perhaps the army had a million sets of quilted down-filled long johns all ready to issue on the 17 Dec and their plans were rudely upset by the Germans, but I doubt it. US troops in the ETO were seriously deficient in winter equipment. Trench foot from foodwear that was inadequate was a serious problem. The issue field jacket was unlined and did little to stop the wind. Supply of clothing to the places where it was needed was often sporadic because transport was needed for ammunition, food, weapons and the like. Irwin Shaw wasn’t blowing smoke in _The Young Lions_ when he wrote that the closer you got to the front the more the army resembled the rag tag militia of a banana republic. In our group our waist gunners were positioned next to open windows and were continually scounging for warmer clothing to avoid freezing in the winter at 12000 ft altitude. And yet, when one of my pals went to visit a friend of his in a hospital he came back to report that everyone there had fleece lined flight suits including shoes and heavy gloves. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-not-allowed-to-wear-commercial-body-armor/340377.md?page=4)