On this we agree. My point (really a nitpick) was about the Battle of Bastogne as an example of shortages of equipment.
Moreover I think as an example, it proves the opposite point, has the military learned nothing in 50+ years?
What possible excuse could the pentagon come up with if the 101st Airborne still didn’t have proper winter gear in Afghanistan?
The real problem is that basic gear is not sexy.
Stealth aircraft, UAV’s, etc, etc, etc, get funding, if it’s new cutting edge tech there’s plenty of cash.
Remember the 80’s, lots of new planes, ships, and tanks but no spare parts for the old stuff (the stuff that actually would have been needed if WW3 had broken out).
Lots of patriotic talk, but not enough ammo for training.
After all the mistakes we’ve seen in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam there are no acceptable excuses for poorly/under equipped soldiers.
Fair point, I should really have said ‘Battle of the Bulge’ I suppose - I believe that is when the problem reached it’s peak.
Heh - the military is the military, that’s all there is too it. Even when there is plenty of something, it will be available everywhere but where it is needed. Or it will be distributed wrong - everyone gets two right boots or two left boots, never a pair.
Whenever stuff is bought for the troops, the decisions are made by comittees of generals and bureaucrats who don’t know which end does what, and don’t want to hear about boring things like maintenance.
Apparently the engine for the Abrams M1 has been out of production since 1992 and many repairs now have to be made by cannibalizing engines. This one engine along consumes some ridiculous proportion of the army’s entire maintenance bill as a result. Nice, huh?
Well, yes and no. Obviously, the president can’t be personally supervising every single detail. But when there’s a systemic flaw which becomes widely publically discussed, the president can certainly comment on it, say that he has expressed his concern to appropriate parties, etc. Even as a mostly symbolic gesture, something like that would be noted.
Being the cynical Bush-disliker that I am, I strongly suspect that in this case, the decision for Bush not to comment on this issue is not because he’s been so incredibly busy overseeing the big picture in Iraq (which is, if anything, even more screwed up than the small picture), but because his advisers feel that any kind of negativity would be worse PR than just not talking about the issue at all.
Well, I know it’s a bit taboo to resurrect an old thread (this one ain’t that old though), but I figured I’d bring to the table a link I just got in an e-mail:
To quote the article: “. . .spokesman Bryan Whitman said Friday that there are no plans to enforce such a policy across all of the military services,” and that “all such equipment decisions are left up to the individual services.”
I take this as a good thing for me: Being Air Force, I routinely send a handful of my troops outside the wire on a daily basis to escort local nationals onto the base. They have government issued body armor, but if the case had been different and they had been forced to purchase their own private armor, my hands would not be tied by not allowing them to use it. I personally prefer the option of affording them some level of protection whether it be on Uncle Sam’s dime or theirs. This allows me to get the job done, without interference from “upstairs”.
Quoth, “Army officials told The Associated Press on Thursday the order was prompted by concerns that soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial armor from private companies . . .” This I can understand and fully appreciate. You don’t want your troops out in the field with potentially unreliable equipment, or uncertified gear.
These two points standing: I would hope someone “upstairs” would dismantle whatever section handles personal protective equipment in the Army Quartermaster Corps, and fire the management. Shame on them for not seeing a potential shortage in advance, and not seeking commercial alternatives if their own stocked supplies were seen lacking.
I fully understand contractual law in the DoD is designed to move slowly, but there are some times that process needs to be kicked in the ass to move quickly.
First, SGLI.
The great thing about SGLI is that there aren’t really any clauses. It’s simple. IF you dead, THEN they pay. There is no war clause, no preexisting condition clause, not "improper safety equipment clause and even no suicide clause. I could shoot myself in the head right now, just grab this pistol and shoot myself in the head and my neice gets close to half a million bucks. Even if the pistol was not authorized gear
If I crash on a motorcycle without a helmet–even in a state where that is illegal–SGLI will still pay. So for anyone to suggest that you wont be paid if you’re wearing some type of equipment or even failing to wear some type of equipment, it’s just ridiculous. So if I shoot myself in the head while wearing Dragon Skin, then what do they suggest will happen? I have to take it off before committing suicide to get my family paid?
This report doesn’t quite mean what people are suggesting. For this to upset you, you would have to assume that a more effective OTV exists. If someone is shot in the chest with a .50 cal, it’s going to cut through the vest and plates (front and back) and keep on going, leaving a massive hole and a dead soldier. The statement “this soldier would have lived if the vest was more effective” is true in this case. It’s true that a more effective vest would have prevented that death, but such a vest DOES NOT EXIST. Or where a soldier takes multiple hits (I wont hint toward how many, but more than a vest can handle), and the armor is defeated and the soldier dies. There’s another statistic.
That statement is like saying 90% of our M1A1 Tanks might not have been destroyed if it was more effective. I could easily rack up statistics to prove that. I could shoot an M1 with a javelin missle and just leave a hole where the tank was. But that would not prove a better tank currently exists, or that some bureacrat is at fault for our M1s being vulnerable to GUIDED MISSLES. It just means we have to look at what destroyed the tank, and see if there’s anything we can do about it.
The report merely suggests that further personnel armor research is an absolute necessity. It doesn’t mean that someone is doing something wrong currently. Plus, because of the use of the words “might have”, we don’t even know for sure. I’m also curious if casualties involving rollovers or bullet wounds to unprotected areas are also included in that statistic. After all, if the vest has a built in neck brace, or if the vest covered the whole body with 3" thick steel plates, then some of those people might not have died. So it’s very easy to pull statement like that out of nowhere or even to find proof that backs it up. But it doesn’t necessarily mean what people are claiming. It just means we need to dump budget money into armor research. And that’s just what they’re doing. Dragon skin received a huge chunk of money to improve their product. The military wants better armor. I could see someone releasing a report with a claim like that to ensure they get it.
Absolutely! The only people claiming that Dragon Skin is the cat’s pajamas of armor is THEM!!! Until recently, I had never even heard of them. I have breifly looked over their website, and at first glance it looks like a lot of hype. A LOT of hype. They are claiming to have a flexible soft body armor that defeats rifle rounds. They claim to have level III and level IV SOFT ARMOR!! That’s unprecidented! It’s never existed and no other manufacturer has such a thing. Up until their claims, all dreams of III and IV soft armor involved very exotic materials. Exotic like carbon nanofibers n shit you all know we dont have. So when I saw that, I was immediately skeptical. It’s like the guy on late at night who says you can cure cancer by taking vitamins. No, not Tom Cruise. That other guy with the book who just claims that all the doctors are hiding information from you and medicine is insufficient (sound familiar?). That’s exactly what their site made me think of. I am very interested to see tests and such on that armor. But I am not going to accept anything coming from their website.
There is no soft level III or above armor. To get that kind of protection, you have to use PLATES. Hard plates. Inflexible plates. I’m also very curious how (if true) their vest handles multiple impacts from rifle rounds. I’m better an issue OTV with SAPI plates performs better. And I think the Army agrees! One of the links in this thread even suggests the Army tested their stuff and was not impressed. Hmmm I wonder why. Probably because it’s all hype.
Closer to the point is that once they finally started issuing armor, and once everyone had armor, they just made sure that everyone was wearing the tested and proven OTV instead of some aftermarket or immatation crap. There is a lot of junk armor out there. Search the web, all those “spy” shops even sell armor. They’ll probably give you a package deal and include a stun gun and one of those “armed citizen” IDs and badge. :rolleyes:
There are many innovations in modern armor. Not all the companies are on par or up to date with the leaders. And despite all the “it’s lowest bidder” garbage, Point Blank is one of–if not THE–finest armor companies in the world. The Army is getting their shit from the finest, most innovative, and most proven company in the market to date. Their not buying from mom and pop, cheapo spy shops.
The problem, is not all the souldiers and especially not their families have any idea what constitutes good armor. So people were buying shit. And they were wearing shit. Many, if not most, of them just wasted their money. They are no better protected wearing the crap they bought than not wearing it. It’s like when everyone speant all that money buying those cheap ass surplus Israeli gas masks from the Army Surplus or paintball store. Those masks wont filter out shit. If anything ever happened, they would have put on their masks and died just as fast as all their friends. They should have just burned that money. When people are ignorant of a product, they put themselves at the mercy of the seller and often times get screwed. A soldier is not an armor expert and doesn’t usually know the differences between one type or the other. Or even what the capabilities and/or limitations are of one vest compared to another.
The only reason I happen to know so much about them is that before joining the military, I sold armor (and machineguns and other shit) for a living. I speant a lot of time educating people about their armor. It’s amazing even what professionals do not know or understand about their armor. Like this one Fish and Game officer who wanted some extra soft panels to strap to his legs, because “in our job, people have rifles!! I want all the protection I can get”. I explained to him that any one of those rifles will put a round through multiple layers of his “rigged” leg guards, rip through the soft fleshy tissue in his leg, go out the rear layers or his “extra protection” and then kill the deer behind him. My boss later pulled me aside and told me not to say shit like that. But whatever… the point is people do shit and even rig shit that doesn’t always make sense. The average soldier is WORSE than that guy!
I tend to agree. I’m eagerly awaiting more info on them. I want to see some independant results. Like I mentioned, when I was in the business, I saw a lot of claims and a lot of squirrely ass people selling some bullshit!
Show me one Operator who is saying that. Show me one who has worn it, been shot in it, and is bragging about it. Point Blank has many, many letters of exactly that. I think the only people making those claims about Dragon Skin right now is Pennacle. But like I said, I’m still open on the issue of how good their shit is.
I will say this: If their armor lives up to their claims; if they have level IV soft armor, then that’s fucking amazing and their years ahead of everyone else.
It’s not relevant only because it’s very misleading. She wouldn’t have been issued boots at jump school because the Army issued her boots at basic already. 2 pair. What the hell did she do with them? You don’t need special boots for jump school. In fact, they recommend the standard issue boots. Those boots are great! I made it through jump school without incident and even added another two dozen jumps to my log in those standard issue boots I got at Basic. I also did some other amazing shit in the standard issue boots, like SFAS. I still have my original two pairs of boots. One of them has been resoled like 8 times. But that’s only because I keep a very soft sole on it that wears away in like 6 months. It doesn’t last, but it’s the shiznit for running with a 60lbs of gear! The other pair still has the same original sole. I use those for other things. Like jumping from planes, climbing ropes, swimming, walking on soft terrain… that sort of thing.
The fact that she saw dozens of pussies limping around is irrelevant. There’s nothing special about aftermarket boots that’s going to save your ankels. I wonder why she misled you like this. What did she do with her issued boots?
Not to mention that some vests purchased might not even accept plates AT ALL! There are thousands of different styles of vests out there. Only a small portion of them are even meant for military use, and even a smaller portion of those are even worth their weight in dog shit. Does the carrier of their vest have MOLLE straps? Then how will they attach their MOLLE gear? Some vests use a button and velcro attachment system, not MOLLE. Some vests have no attachments at all. Some vests come with permanantly attached pockets that wont do shit for you but get in your way when you’re trying to get to shit on your LBV. Considering that the decent combat armor systems costs in the 2-5 thousand dollar range, and most soldiers speant like 2 or 3 hundred, you can see where there would be quality issues as well. Hell, I’m curious how many soldiers are going to turn in a claim sheet for the max 1100 dollars knowing full well they only paid 300 bucks for their vest.
But, anyway, this statement makes perfect sense. All vests are not compatible. Worse yet, all vests are not even worth a damn. Now the Army is stuck with all these garbage vests purchased by ignorant soldiers who didn’t know or didn’t think about these issues. Now they all belong to the Army. But the only thing I can see the Army doing with them is giving them away. Maybe to the new Iraqi Army? Or maybe some other country’s Army. Hell, we’ll probably be shooting at the shit in like 10 years, who knows with politics.
Bottom line is the vest that has been proven to be the best during testing is finally being issued to pretty much everyone. Now the Army is saying "you all have issued vests now. So wear them. Turn in the crap you bought, we’ll buy them back from you. You’re no longer allowed to wear them - cause most likely you bought crap anyway. I dont see the harm in that. In fact it makes perfect sense to me. Especially if you figure like 60 percent are wearing inferior gear, 35 percent are wearing something equally as effective, and maybe 5 percent bought something better. A sweeping “issued vests only” makes sense. It’s too bad that small percent has to wear something a little less effective, but when you’re dealing with logistics of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, I can see where the Army’s coming from.
I assumed that by saying “this amount of soldiers died, and they would not have had they been wearing superior body armour”, that they were acknowledging the existence of a superior armour. Otherwise, what’s the point? You could say that for anything; our guided missiles failed because they don’t have teleportation technology, our tanks are being destroyed because they don’t have heavy duty armour which also only weighs the same as a sheet of paper. Well, duh, of course they don’t. So they don’t have to point it out - it’s a useless addition to the report.
Secondly, i’ll need to quote the story again for this point;
Why only 80%? If the comparison is being made to a non-existant armour, why isn’t it 100%? After all, comparing to a non-existant armour, I can say that 100% of those 401 soldiers would have been saved, if I want my report to bring about change. Or I can say 0%, because my imaginary armour is useless, if I don’t think there should be change. By saying 80% - and creating a reasonably specific figure - that suggests that there’s some benchmark they’re comparing the current armour with.
I’m not saying you’re wrong on these points (you certainly seem very vehement), but I wouldn’t mind clarification on these points.
No I don’t believe that logically follows from their statements. If there was some benchmark, or something it was compared against, then why not say “80% of soldiers who died in Iraq might have been saved by X Brand Armor Vest” or by the “Mega Goldflex 3000” material. They’re not saying that. They’re saying they “might” have lived if it was more “effective”.
Something better does not have to exist for the Army to want improvements or greater effectiveness from the current item. When the Marines went digital, there wasn’t anything better than our current camo. But they said, “We want something more effective.” That more effective thing did not exist yet. But they worked on it until they were satisfied. We’re still not satisfied with our body armor. More accurately, I think, we’re not satisfied with body armor period. It’s not the OTV we dont like, it’s any model. The military wants something more effective. Period.
There are people out there who want us to have those “carbon nanofiber super vests”. And we’re not going to get them without lots of money poured into Research and Development. How do we get funding? Simply prove that the current model needs to be more effective. And show there’s a necessity.
Because vehicluar accidents, heat casualties, helicopter crashes, and incidents wear soldiers were not wearing any body armor are all are making up the other 20 percent. Or at least a large portion of it. It’s easy to look at a defeated vest, claim that the vest needs improvement, and add that to the statistic. And I really don’t think the statistic even came from such a thorough case by case analysis.
My best guess is the Marine Corps looked at deaths caused by direct fire weapons. Then, they took all those deaths, and checked the report to see if they were wearing body armor. If it was, it’s strongly arguable to say if the armor was more effective then the soldier might have lived.
In fact, now that I think about it, that statistic–if your interpretation is to be believed–would suggest that 80% of all the Marines who died in that time period were shot by a bullet that either penetrated the armor or hit a place on the body that should have been covered but wasn’t.
So all IEDs, shots to the head or face, RPG blasts, vehicular accidents, grenades, impacts to the vest by rounds larger than 7.62 or by rounds smaller but that penetrated anyway do to total vest failure, and any other means of death only caused 20% of their casualties?
I can’t believe that for a second. 80% of soldiers died because the vest didn’t work as it should have, or a round penetrated the side of the vest (sans plating) or through the upper arm into the torso, or it was a round too big for the vest to handle but the Marines think it should stop it because there’s something out there that will (even though there isn’t)???
That cannot possibly be accurate.
It’s a misleading statistic at best. But most likely a grossly fudged figure that helps promote someone’s agenda - albeit a good one. Hell, I completely agree with the pursuit to make vests better. Who could argue with that? Especially when we have statistics to back it up
Because I know that there isn’t a modern improvement you could currently do to that vest to imrove it or make it more effective. There just isn’t.
Sure you could make it slightly lighter, but that’s about it. Really that’s it. But if the statistic said they would have lived if the vest was a little lighter, that would be laughable. The cost to gain ration of a slightly lighter vest just isn’t practical right now.
Those vests have countless limitations and they need infinite improvement. But right now, that’s the best there is. The BALCS system discussed in those links is pretty much the same system. Except the plates are a little lighter, a little thinner, and the outter carrier has quick disconnects. The rest of the system just allows it to be worn for different types of missions. But that’s not relevant, since people performing those types of missions, are getting the vest they need. Either way, it’s still a level IIIA soft armor vest and level III or IV plates.
So what can we do to the OTV to improve it? They’ve already attached extra pieces to the neck, arms, groin etc.
But here’s the point people are missing, I think. Those extra attachments will NOT STOP RIFLE ROUNDS!! So to say the Marines in that statistic needed upperarm/sleeve protection but never got it, is wrong. That “improvement” would have have helped someone shot by a rifle in the arm. It would have penetrated the armor and likely into the torso.
The claims made by Pennacle are pretty amazing, though. But the Army even tested their material, and they were not impressed. So obviously there’s a lot of hype there. And how is it that they can make vests that amazing, but no one else can? There’s got to be a catch. But the military has even invited them for more tests. And after they spend all that funding on R&D, maybe they’ll eventually come up with a product half as good as they claim they already have. We’ll see. And I eagerly await the results. Making soft body armor that stops rifle rounds IS the improvement the current vest needs. But it not only needs to stop penetration, it needs to be firm enough to preven the standard 44mm of backface and blunt trauma the impact will cause. So, yeah, it needs to be thin and light, but also stop a rifle round and disperse the impact across the whole vest so that the soldier doesn’t take a “sledge hammer to the ribs”. That’s how we make a more effective vest. But that vest DOES NOT EXIST yet.
Sorry, that goes in the “Vest Needs Improvement Category”. I mistakenly put it in my list of all OTHER ways of dying that don’t imply the vest may need improving.
Sorry for that confusion… and the rambling.
