Army Bans Use of Privately Bought Armor

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_...;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear body armor other than the protective gear issued by the military, Army officials said Thursday, the latest twist in a running battle over the equipment the Pentagon gives its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Army officials told The Associated Press that the order was prompted by concerns that soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial armor from private companies ? including the popular Dragon Skin gear made by California-based Pinnacle Armor.

"We're very concerned that people are spending their hard-earned money on something that doesn't provide the level of protection that the Army requires people to wear. So they're, frankly, wasting their money on substandard stuff," said Col. Thomas Spoehr, director of materiel for the Army.

Veterans groups immediately denounced the decision.

Nathaniel R. Helms, editor of the Soldiers for the Truth online magazine Defense Watch, said he has already received a number of e-mails from soldiers complaining about the policy.

"Outrageously we've seen that (soldiers) haven't been getting what they need in terms of equipment and body armor," said Sen. Christopher Dodd (news, bio, voting record), D-Conn., who wrote legislation to have troops reimbursed for equipment purchases. "That's totally unacceptable, and why this directive by the Pentagon needs to be scrutinized in much greater detail."

Rieckhoff said, the military is partially to blame for the problem because it took too long to get soldiers the armor they needed. "This is the monster they made," he said.

Early in the Iraq war, soldiers and their families were spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars on protective gear that they said the military was not providing.

Then, last October, after months of pressure from families and members of Congress, the military began a reimbursement program for soldiers who purchased their own protective equipment.

In January, an unreleased Pentagon study found that side armor could have saved dozens of U.S. lives in Iraq, prompting the Army and Marine Corps to order thousands of ceramic body armor plates to be shipped to troops there this year.

Army Lt. Col. Scott Campbell said the Army has asked Pinnacle to provide 30 sets of the full Dragon Skin armor so it can be independently tested. He said Pinnacle has indicated it won't be able to provide that armor until May, and the company said that is still the plan.



No one wants soldiers buying and using inadequate body armor (at least no patriotic American). But this problem is a result of the Armies failure to provide adequate armor, and they STILL can't provide adequate armor.
The best solution would be for the Army to have bought decent armor, and failing that fixed and/or upgraded their armor in a timely fashion.
But this Army decision doesn't seem to make any sense.
And why hasn't the Army ALREADY bought and tested the Dragon Skin armor on their own? Since it was obviously already commerically available.

 

[dmcowen674]

No surprise here.

Anytime this Regime looks bad they pull this kind of stuff.

Too bad it cost more of our soldier lives.

Really sad part is the American sheeple don't care this Regime costs soldiers lives.

 

[Apocalypse X]

OMG--- you guys have no reason even commenting on body armor until you have been there and done that.

 

[umbrella39]

This is crazy. Wonder how this is going to sit with the families of our troops who up until now were still Iraq war chearleaders. WTF

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Apocalypse
OMG--- you guys have no reason even commenting on body armor until you have been there and done that.

OMG

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
This is crazy. Wonder how this is going to sit with the families of our troops who up until now were still Iraq war chearleaders. WTF

you say this now but when the armor companies and US govt become targets of lawsuits bc a soldier was wearing non-US issued armor, you'll know why they did this

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: umbrella39
This is crazy. Wonder how this is going to sit with the families of our troops who up until now were still Iraq war chearleaders. WTF

you say this now but when the armor companies and US govt become targets of lawsuits bc a soldier was wearing non-US issued armor, you'll know why they did this

Further proof that people who have no idea what it is they are talking about at all should not speak.

When you sign your contract with the military you void your ability to sue them. Period.

 

[Train]

Whats the use of buying more armor when most troops don't wear it anyways? in 140 degree heat, actually putting on all the attachments is more of a threat than a safety measure. Heat casualties and/or hyponytremia are a big problem.

The neck protector is suffocating, the shoulder guards make it impossible to properly move your rifle around, and the crotch guard prevents you from walking. I've only worn the crotch guard once, and promptly took it off. I dont want to get my nuts blown off, but I also need move quickly. Which am I more likely to need? To stop a round headed for my sack, or to haul ass? I'd rather haul ass than stand there playing pong with my nut plate.

As the comments posted to the following article point out, almost all decisions regarding body armot are politically motivated, and they need to stop trying to make the press or political oponents happy, and start listening to the guys who actually have to wear it.

HUSAYBAH, Iraq - Extra body armor - the lack of which caused a political storm in the United States - has flooded in to Iraq, but many Marines here promptly stuck it in lockers or under bunks. Too heavy and cumbersome, many say.

Marines already carry loads as heavy as 70 pounds when they patrol the dangerous streets in towns and villages in restive Anbar province. The new armor plates, while only about five pounds per set, are not worth carrying for the additional safety they are said to provide, some say.

"We have to climb over walls and go through windows," said Sgt. Justin Shank of Greencastle, Pa. "I understand the more armor, the safer you are. But it makes you slower. People don't understand that this is combat and people are going to die."

Staff Sgt. Thomas Bain of Buffalo, N.Y., shared concerns about the extra pounds.

"Before you know it, they're going to get us injured because we're hauling too much weight and don't have enough mobility to maneuver in a fight from house to house," said Bain, who is assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment. "I think we're starting to go overboard on the armor."

Since the insurgency erupted in Iraq, the Pentagon has been criticized for supplying insufficient armor for Humvees and too few bulletproof vests. In one remarkable incident, Soldiers publicly confronted Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld about the problem on live television.

Hometown groups across the United States have since raised money to send extra armor to troops, and the Pentagon, under congressional pressure, launched a program last October to reimburse troops who had purchased armor with their own money.

Soldiers and their parents spent hundreds, sometimes thousand of dollars, on armor until the Pentagon began issuing the new protective gear.

In Bain's platoon of about 35 men, Marines said only three or four wore the plates after commanders distributed them last month and told them that use was optional.

Top military officials, including Secretary of the Army Francis Harvey, acknowledge the concerns over weight and mobility but have urged that the new gear be mandatory.

"That's going to add weight, of course," said Harvey. "You've read where certain Soldiers aren't happy about that. But we think it's in their best interest to do this."

Marines have shown a special aversion to the new plates because they tend to patrol on foot, sometimes conducting two patrols each day that last several hours. They feel the extra weight.

In Euphrates River cities from Ramadi and Romanna, lance corporals to captains have complained about the added weight and lack of mobility. But some commanders have refused to listen. In the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, for example, commanders require use of the plates. End of story.

The Marine Corps has said a total of 28,000 sets of the plates, officially called small-arms protective inserts, or side SAPIs, will be in combat zones by April. The Army has said it is hoping to have 230,000 sets of plates in the field this year.

Last year, a study by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner said dozens of Marines killed by wounds to the torso might have survived had the larger plates been in use.

"I'm sure people who ... lost kidneys would have loved to have had them on," said 2nd Lt. William Oren, a native of Southlake, Texas, who wears the plates. "More armor isn't the answer to all our problems. But I'll recommend them because it's more protection."

Some Marines have chosen to wear the plates, particularly those in more vulnerable jobs such as Humvees turret gunners or those who frequently travel on roads plagued by roadside bombs.

But many Marines - particularly those who conduct foot patrols also carrying weapons, extra ammunition, medical equipment, night vision goggles, food and water - say the extra armor is not worth it, especially when the weather becomes unbearably hot.

"When you already have 60, 70 pounds on and you add 10 pounds when you go patrolling through the city or chasing after bad guys, that extra 10 pounds is going to make a difference. You're going to feel it," said Lance Cpl. David Partridge from Bangor, Maine.

Many Marines, however, believe the politics of the issue eventually will make the plates mandatory.

"The reason they issued (the plates), I think, is to make people back home feel better," said Lance Cpl. Philip Tootle of Reidsville, Ga. "I'm not wishing they wouldn't have issued them. I'm just wishing that they wouldn't make them mandatory."

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: umbrella39
This is crazy. Wonder how this is going to sit with the families of our troops who up until now were still Iraq war chearleaders. WTF

you say this now but when the armor companies and US govt become targets of lawsuits bc a soldier was wearing non-US issued armor, you'll know why they did this

Wow.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Apocalypse
OMG--- you guys have no reason even commenting on body armor until you have been there and done that.

So I can't say better body armor is good, because i have yet to be shot at? WTF?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: umbrella39
This is crazy. Wonder how this is going to sit with the families of our troops who up until now were still Iraq war chearleaders. WTF

you say this now but when the armor companies and US govt become targets of lawsuits bc a soldier was wearing non-US issued armor, you'll know why they did this

Trust me, I would much rather prefer our own military take care of this issue and take care of it right. The mere fact that this is even an issue IS the issue imo.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Train
Whats the use of buying more armor when most troops don't wear it anyways? in 140 degree heat, actually putting on all the attachments is more of a threat than a safety measure. Heat casualties and/or hyponytremia are a big problem.

The neck protector is suffocating, the shoulder guards make it impossible to properly move your rifle around, and the crotch guard prevents you from walking. I've only worn the crotch guard once, and promptly took it off. I dont want to get my nuts blown off, but I also need move quickly. Which am I more likely to need? To stop a round headed for my sack, or to haul ass? I'd rather haul ass than stand there playing pong with my nut plate.

As the comments posted to the following article point out, almost all decisions regarding body armot are politically motivated, and they need to stop trying to make the press or political oponents happy, and start listening to the guys who actually have to wear it.

HUSAYBAH, Iraq - Extra body armor - the lack of which caused a political storm in the United States - has flooded in to Iraq, but many Marines here promptly stuck it in lockers or under bunks. Too heavy and cumbersome, many say.

Marines already carry loads as heavy as 70 pounds when they patrol the dangerous streets in towns and villages in restive Anbar province. The new armor plates, while only about five pounds per set, are not worth carrying for the additional safety they are said to provide, some say.

"We have to climb over walls and go through windows," said Sgt. Justin Shank of Greencastle, Pa. "I understand the more armor, the safer you are. But it makes you slower. People don't understand that this is combat and people are going to die."

Staff Sgt. Thomas Bain of Buffalo, N.Y., shared concerns about the extra pounds.

"Before you know it, they're going to get us injured because we're hauling too much weight and don't have enough mobility to maneuver in a fight from house to house," said Bain, who is assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment. "I think we're starting to go overboard on the armor."

Since the insurgency erupted in Iraq, the Pentagon has been criticized for supplying insufficient armor for Humvees and too few bulletproof vests. In one remarkable incident, Soldiers publicly confronted Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld about the problem on live television.

Hometown groups across the United States have since raised money to send extra armor to troops, and the Pentagon, under congressional pressure, launched a program last October to reimburse troops who had purchased armor with their own money.

Soldiers and their parents spent hundreds, sometimes thousand of dollars, on armor until the Pentagon began issuing the new protective gear.

In Bain's platoon of about 35 men, Marines said only three or four wore the plates after commanders distributed them last month and told them that use was optional.

Top military officials, including Secretary of the Army Francis Harvey, acknowledge the concerns over weight and mobility but have urged that the new gear be mandatory.

"That's going to add weight, of course," said Harvey. "You've read where certain Soldiers aren't happy about that. But we think it's in their best interest to do this."

Marines have shown a special aversion to the new plates because they tend to patrol on foot, sometimes conducting two patrols each day that last several hours. They feel the extra weight.

In Euphrates River cities from Ramadi and Romanna, lance corporals to captains have complained about the added weight and lack of mobility. But some commanders have refused to listen. In the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, for example, commanders require use of the plates. End of story.

The Marine Corps has said a total of 28,000 sets of the plates, officially called small-arms protective inserts, or side SAPIs, will be in combat zones by April. The Army has said it is hoping to have 230,000 sets of plates in the field this year.

Last year, a study by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner said dozens of Marines killed by wounds to the torso might have survived had the larger plates been in use.

"I'm sure people who ... lost kidneys would have loved to have had them on," said 2nd Lt. William Oren, a native of Southlake, Texas, who wears the plates. "More armor isn't the answer to all our problems. But I'll recommend them because it's more protection."

Some Marines have chosen to wear the plates, particularly those in more vulnerable jobs such as Humvees turret gunners or those who frequently travel on roads plagued by roadside bombs.

But many Marines - particularly those who conduct foot patrols also carrying weapons, extra ammunition, medical equipment, night vision goggles, food and water - say the extra armor is not worth it, especially when the weather becomes unbearably hot.

"When you already have 60, 70 pounds on and you add 10 pounds when you go patrolling through the city or chasing after bad guys, that extra 10 pounds is going to make a difference. You're going to feel it," said Lance Cpl. David Partridge from Bangor, Maine.

Many Marines, however, believe the politics of the issue eventually will make the plates mandatory.

"The reason they issued (the plates), I think, is to make people back home feel better," said Lance Cpl. Philip Tootle of Reidsville, Ga. "I'm not wishing they wouldn't have issued them. I'm just wishing that they wouldn't make them mandatory."

Why isn't better technology available? I know that ligher weight and more mobile forms of armor exist, why isn't that the army and marine corps standard? I assume it costs more, but body armor seems like an area where you don't want to do things on the cheap.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: umbrella39
This is crazy. Wonder how this is going to sit with the families of our troops who up until now were still Iraq war chearleaders. WTF

you say this now but when the armor companies and US govt become targets of lawsuits bc a soldier was wearing non-US issued armor, you'll know why they did this

I think the safety of the troops is more important than worrying about getting sued. This is why warfare and politics don't get along.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
Why isn't better technology available?

It's still a ways off

I know that ligher weight and more mobile forms of armor exist

Maybe for L.A. SWAT, who jump out of an air-conditioned, armored van, go a total of 200 feet, clear a room, then strip down, kick thier boots off and say ahhhhhh. But what works for them doesnt work for 3 or 4 mile foot patrol through 140 degree heat, while carrying MUCH more weight besides the armor itself.

, why isn't that the army and marine corps standard?

for reasons stated above. They are testing lighter and stronger armor, and have been for years, but like I said, anything good enough to replace the current stuff is still a ways off.

I assume it costs more, but body armor seems like an area where you don't want to do things on the cheap.

I agree, but current politiking has caused the DOD to waste a bunch of money on slapping useless junk on top of the current generation of armor, when they should have spent that money ramping up the next gen gear.

 

[JTWill]

I just love civilian comments....If I followed the news some of you place great store in....I would have barried alot more men. Because of the press selling a story that our front line troops have no body armor several groups in this country have been raising money to buy it and ship it to our men....Do the USArmy a favor and send our men overseas a letter of thanks...Be a pen pal. Talk to them....You buy the top of the line vest for a law enforcement officer for a troop and wonder why we insist that soldier wear a ceramic we provide...difference of whats proven.

 

[JTWill]

Oh BTW I hate people that have never fought a battle telling me how to take care of my men.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: JTWill
I just love civilian comments....If I followed the news some of you place great store in....I would have barried alot more men. Because of the press selling a story that our front line troops have no body armor several groups in this country have been raising money to buy it and ship it to our men....Do the USArmy a favor and send our men overseas a letter of thanks...Be a pen pal. Talk to them....You buy the top of the line vest for a law enforcement officer for a troop and wonder why we insist that soldier wear a ceramic we provide...difference of whats proven.

I don't quite get what you're saying but i'm sure you'd agree it's stupid to outlaw the use of privately bought armor.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: JTWill
Oh BTW I hate people that have never fought a battle telling me how to take care of my men.

At some point the chain of command becomes civilian. How do you deal with that?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Why isn't better technology available? I know that ligher weight and more mobile forms of armor exist, why isn't that the army and marine corps standard? I assume it costs more, but body armor seems like an area where you don't want to do things on the cheap.

The military is constantly working on better armor, both in design and materials. The most recent that I'm aware of (before I stopped working for the USAF materials lab) was a titanium-ceramic composite plate. The same time these were released, new vests were produced that allowed troops to throw the plates over their shoulders so they could be safer when driving/shooting out of vehicles. These were rushed to Iraq without really much stateside testing in response to the media frenzy claiming that our troops didn't have the best available armor. In reality, what was in the field at the time was the best available (IIRC, Sparkla/ceramic plates). It's possible that not enough troops had this armor, since it's my understanding that certain units (special forces, airborne) receive new equipment at a higher priority than other units. This seems logical, since these forces will see more combat.

As for why lighter armor isn't adopted, it's because it really doesn't work when you're dealing with larger-calibre weapons. Generally, there are two major factors in an armor's effectiveness: the mass of the plate and the fracture energy of the plate material. The fracture energy is limited by which material we use, and many very smart people are working to improve this. Thus, we are left with using heavy plates that are as light as possible while still actually stopping bullets. As with all engineering problems, this one is full of trade-offs, protection versus utility in this case.

Finally, I'll add that the way the government in general does things is very slow and tedious. Every material - from motor oil to bullets to body armor - has to go through a ridiculous battery of tests before it can be used by the DoD. Thus, the DoD cannot allow its employees to use equipment that hasn't past muster any more than it can allow them to put their own 'special' grease in the bearing of a cruise missile. Every last item that is used must meet specifications. It's an unfortunate side-effect of all that government oversight/red tape, but it also has its benefits.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Train
Whats the use of buying more armor when most troops don't wear it anyways? in 140 degree heat, actually putting on all the attachments is more of a threat than a safety measure. Heat casualties and/or hyponytremia are a big problem.

The neck protector is suffocating, the shoulder guards make it impossible to properly move your rifle around, and the crotch guard prevents you from walking. I've only worn the crotch guard once, and promptly took it off. I dont want to get my nuts blown off, but I also need move quickly. Which am I more likely to need? To stop a round headed for my sack, or to haul ass? I'd rather haul ass than stand there playing pong with my nut plate.

As the comments posted to the following article point out, almost all decisions regarding body armot are politically motivated, and they need to stop trying to make the press or political oponents happy, and start listening to the guys who actually have to wear it.

HUSAYBAH, Iraq - Extra body armor - the lack of which caused a political storm in the United States - has flooded in to Iraq, but many Marines here promptly stuck it in lockers or under bunks. Too heavy and cumbersome, many say.

Marines already carry loads as heavy as 70 pounds when they patrol the dangerous streets in towns and villages in restive Anbar province. The new armor plates, while only about five pounds per set, are not worth carrying for the additional safety they are said to provide, some say.

"We have to climb over walls and go through windows," said Sgt. Justin Shank of Greencastle, Pa. "I understand the more armor, the safer you are. But it makes you slower. People don't understand that this is combat and people are going to die."

Staff Sgt. Thomas Bain of Buffalo, N.Y., shared concerns about the extra pounds.

"Before you know it, they're going to get us injured because we're hauling too much weight and don't have enough mobility to maneuver in a fight from house to house," said Bain, who is assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment. "I think we're starting to go overboard on the armor."

Since the insurgency erupted in Iraq, the Pentagon has been criticized for supplying insufficient armor for Humvees and too few bulletproof vests. In one remarkable incident, Soldiers publicly confronted Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld about the problem on live television.

Hometown groups across the United States have since raised money to send extra armor to troops, and the Pentagon, under congressional pressure, launched a program last October to reimburse troops who had purchased armor with their own money.

Soldiers and their parents spent hundreds, sometimes thousand of dollars, on armor until the Pentagon began issuing the new protective gear.

In Bain's platoon of about 35 men, Marines said only three or four wore the plates after commanders distributed them last month and told them that use was optional.

Top military officials, including Secretary of the Army Francis Harvey, acknowledge the concerns over weight and mobility but have urged that the new gear be mandatory.

"That's going to add weight, of course," said Harvey. "You've read where certain Soldiers aren't happy about that. But we think it's in their best interest to do this."

Marines have shown a special aversion to the new plates because they tend to patrol on foot, sometimes conducting two patrols each day that last several hours. They feel the extra weight.

In Euphrates River cities from Ramadi and Romanna, lance corporals to captains have complained about the added weight and lack of mobility. But some commanders have refused to listen. In the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, for example, commanders require use of the plates. End of story.

The Marine Corps has said a total of 28,000 sets of the plates, officially called small-arms protective inserts, or side SAPIs, will be in combat zones by April. The Army has said it is hoping to have 230,000 sets of plates in the field this year.

Last year, a study by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner said dozens of Marines killed by wounds to the torso might have survived had the larger plates been in use.

"I'm sure people who ... lost kidneys would have loved to have had them on," said 2nd Lt. William Oren, a native of Southlake, Texas, who wears the plates. "More armor isn't the answer to all our problems. But I'll recommend them because it's more protection."

Some Marines have chosen to wear the plates, particularly those in more vulnerable jobs such as Humvees turret gunners or those who frequently travel on roads plagued by roadside bombs.

But many Marines - particularly those who conduct foot patrols also carrying weapons, extra ammunition, medical equipment, night vision goggles, food and water - say the extra armor is not worth it, especially when the weather becomes unbearably hot.

"When you already have 60, 70 pounds on and you add 10 pounds when you go patrolling through the city or chasing after bad guys, that extra 10 pounds is going to make a difference. You're going to feel it," said Lance Cpl. David Partridge from Bangor, Maine.

Many Marines, however, believe the politics of the issue eventually will make the plates mandatory.

"The reason they issued (the plates), I think, is to make people back home feel better," said Lance Cpl. Philip Tootle of Reidsville, Ga. "I'm not wishing they wouldn't have issued them. I'm just wishing that they wouldn't make them mandatory."

It sounds like Train has some very good info.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: JTWill
I just love civilian comments....If I followed the news some of you place great store in....I would have barried alot more men. Because of the press selling a story that our front line troops have no body armor several groups in this country have been raising money to buy it and ship it to our men....Do the USArmy a favor and send our men overseas a letter of thanks...Be a pen pal. Talk to them....You buy the top of the line vest for a law enforcement officer for a troop and wonder why we insist that soldier wear a ceramic we provide...difference of whats proven.

I don't quite get what you're saying but i'm sure you'd agree it's stupid to outlaw the use of privately bought armor.

So, if some company claims to make incredible armor that's better than anything the military uses, and some poor sap buys it THEN discovers that the company exaggerated the protection, and the poor sap dies -- who is at blame? The military for allowing him to wear the armor? The dead kid for believing the company? Or the company for making false statements (or maybe they didn't lie, just didn't have thorough testing or simply testing that didn't match US military testing)?

What do you bet the rat bastards around here would blame the government for not ensuring the armor was adequate? Oh, wait, the military already does that -- it's the Interceptor with ballistic plates.

Besides, as I've mentioned before, that Dragon Skin armor is $6,000 PER SET. The Interceptor vest is $500 with additional money for the plates (not sure how much, but it's not $2,750 each). The government still operates with lowest bidder contracting -- you should see our bathrooms here.

 

[firewall]

Politics.... :roll:

 

[datalink7]

Most of the this talk on armor is complete bs. For instance up armored vehicles are piles of sh!t for the most part. They aren't going to stop an IED anyway, and because they mostly consist of slapping armor on a vehicle that wasn't designed for it, they don't work properly. They break down more often (from what I've heard, 50% more likely to break down), are slower, and don't maneuver for a damn. They are a result of politics, not what they army wanted.

 

[MadRat]

I have a feeling a paper pusher made the decision, not someone in the field. Paper pushers make excellent jack asses.

 

[ChiPCGuy]

I have no idea what it is like to be in battle, or to even try and wear body armor in battle or have to make the decision to forgo it due to heat/movement issues. I can tell you, being someone with some ballistics knowledge, that body armor is OVERRATED and is only desiged to work for a limited range of conditions.

Example, the typical 5.56mm bullet at 3,250 fps (55gr M193) or at 3,150 fps (62gr M855) (velocities given at 10' from muzzle out of a 20" barrel) will ZIP RIGHT THROUGH most body armor BOTH SIDES. Only "level IVA" or better body armor will stop these rounds, and then usually only on the first shot. Subsequent shots may get through.

Most body armor will readily stop a lower velocity pistol round or shrapnel. The body armor does NOT protect you from the EXPLOSION that caused the shrapnel, nor the BLUNT IMPACT of a lower velocity round (a great example is what a 12 gauge deer slug will do to you even if you are wearing body armor--it won't get through, but it will break bones and cause trauma enough to kill you).

Problem is, Level IVA body armor or better weighs 30lbs or so. It will kill you faster than a bullet in the heat.

Body armor has its applications, but I would feel a great deal of trepidation of dictating that everyone in a scenario must wear this stuff, especially when moving out of the line of fire to avoid getting shot in the first place is your first real priority. Body armor impedes movement.

It is a complicated issue, with no one correct answer except in a very limited scope in specific situations. I wouldn't want to be the one making the decisions as to what our troops went into battle with!