Extra Armor Could Have Saved Many Lives, Study Shows

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: AndrewR
As for the article in the OP, it's the usual liberal drivel. Let's talk some specifics (even if conjur won't, and darkhawk can't):

Oh, the Pentagon is now issuing "liberal drivel"?


Interesting.

Good job not responding to any facts I wrote or any points I made. Typical and expected! :beer:

 

[conjur]

What facts? What points? All I saw was your typical Limbaugh-esque spewing. Not worth my time.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: piasabird
No matter what kind of body armor they made, it could be made better.

Our soldiers deserve the absolute best at any time.

As if you or someone who writes for the NYT would have any clue as to what the best might be. Stop trolling.

Wow, wanting to give the troops the best possible equipment to fight a war is such an insult. Wow, that's sure is a troll post. :roll:

If it were as simplistic as you want it to be, perhaps Barney could fight the war. Go back to Disney.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: conjur
Mom buys body armor for son for Christmas
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060108-083611-5084r

NEW YORK, Jan. 8 (UPI) -- A New York City mother says she spent about $3,000 for body armor -- a Christmas gift for her son in the U.S. Marines who is deployed to Iraq.

Elaine Brower said her son, James Brower, gave her a list of items Marine buddies gave him, to buy body armor online.

James Brower had been deployed to Afghanistan, but when he returned he became a New York City police officer. Now, he has been redeployed as a reserve to Iraq and when his mom asked him what he wanted for Christmas, he said "body armor."

Elaine Brower made the purchases online for $2,200. Then she spent $800 for armor for her son's legs, the New York Daily News reported Sunday.

James Brower had assisted Marines and soldiers who had lost limbs in Iraq at the New York City Marathon and they suggested leg armor -- especially to protect the femoral artery.

The son says everything fits and is comfortable and mom is set to make an Internal Revenue Service claim of up to $1,100 -- thanks to a recently enacted: "Claim for Reimbursement and Payment Voucher for Privately Purchased Protective, Safety or Health Equipment Used in Combat."

Wonder where that $87 billion went? It didn't go for reconstruction and it didn't go for body armor.

Funny. I've heard most people don't wear the leg armor because it's too restrictive and boils your nuts. It's also only Kevlar, not ceramic plating so it won't do much against a rifle round.

Oh, and that "recently enacted" reimbursement has been around for quite some time (2004, if I remember correctly) in one form or another. Makes me wonder about the date of that article's information or at the very least its accuracy.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: conjur
What facts? What points? All I saw was your typical Limbaugh-esque spewing. Not worth my time.

Keep up the good work! :beer:

You're so lost with your agenda that you can't even see facts anymore. You probably didn't even read my post anyway.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: conjur
Mom buys body armor for son for Christmas
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060108-083611-5084r

NEW YORK, Jan. 8 (UPI) -- A New York City mother says she spent about $3,000 for body armor -- a Christmas gift for her son in the U.S. Marines who is deployed to Iraq.

Elaine Brower said her son, James Brower, gave her a list of items Marine buddies gave him, to buy body armor online.

James Brower had been deployed to Afghanistan, but when he returned he became a New York City police officer. Now, he has been redeployed as a reserve to Iraq and when his mom asked him what he wanted for Christmas, he said "body armor."

Elaine Brower made the purchases online for $2,200. Then she spent $800 for armor for her son's legs, the New York Daily News reported Sunday.

James Brower had assisted Marines and soldiers who had lost limbs in Iraq at the New York City Marathon and they suggested leg armor -- especially to protect the femoral artery.

The son says everything fits and is comfortable and mom is set to make an Internal Revenue Service claim of up to $1,100 -- thanks to a recently enacted: "Claim for Reimbursement and Payment Voucher for Privately Purchased Protective, Safety or Health Equipment Used in Combat."

Wonder where that $87 billion went? It didn't go for reconstruction and it didn't go for body armor.

Funny. I've heard most people don't wear the leg armor because it's too restrictive and boils your nuts. It's also only Kevlar, not ceramic plating so it won't do much against a rifle round.

Oh, and that "recently enacted" reimbursement has been around for quite some time (2004, if I remember correctly) in one form or another. Makes me wonder about the date of that article's information or at the very least its accuracy.

<ahem>

Oct. 2005
http://www.airforcetimes.com/print.php?f=1-292925-1157923.php


Any other lies you want to spread?

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Not only is this a concern, but the Humvees in Iraq are not doing a great job. The Humvees were originally designed to handle a certain weight but we have added so much weight over the years that it has really taken a toll on the transport. We have added a lot of heavy armor to the Humvees along with other equipment so that puts the Humvees well over the maximum weight limit.

This has lead to the Humvee vehicles being bogged down and really hard to maneuver. So when you combine the lack of mobility along with a really thirsty motor due to all that weight, its not a good situation. The Humvee is basically an old design that needs to be replaced in my opinion. But there is too much politics involved for that to happen quickly.

You're right that there are problems with the Humvee, but it doesn't need to be replaced for the mission it was designed to perform. It's a fine utility vehicle and makes a passable armored transport, but it wasn't designed to be an armored transport. There are other vehicles out there that can perform that function (Cougar, modified Stryker or LAV, some other military police vehicles), but they cost a heckuva lot more than an uparmored Humvee, especially when you're talking thousands of them.

It always comes down to money. I bet we could find some posts by conjur and darkhawk decrying the deficit spending of the administration. Contrast that with the "best equipment money can buy for the troops", and there's a really curious situation at hand.

 

[conjur]

There's a difference between having the best equipment for our military and deficit spending our way to war. BIG difference. Also, this is the first time tax cuts were ever enacted during a time of military action (war)

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: conjur
Mom buys body armor for son for Christmas
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060108-083611-5084r

NEW YORK, Jan. 8 (UPI) -- A New York City mother says she spent about $3,000 for body armor -- a Christmas gift for her son in the U.S. Marines who is deployed to Iraq.

Elaine Brower said her son, James Brower, gave her a list of items Marine buddies gave him, to buy body armor online.

James Brower had been deployed to Afghanistan, but when he returned he became a New York City police officer. Now, he has been redeployed as a reserve to Iraq and when his mom asked him what he wanted for Christmas, he said "body armor."

Elaine Brower made the purchases online for $2,200. Then she spent $800 for armor for her son's legs, the New York Daily News reported Sunday.

James Brower had assisted Marines and soldiers who had lost limbs in Iraq at the New York City Marathon and they suggested leg armor -- especially to protect the femoral artery.

The son says everything fits and is comfortable and mom is set to make an Internal Revenue Service claim of up to $1,100 -- thanks to a recently enacted: "Claim for Reimbursement and Payment Voucher for Privately Purchased Protective, Safety or Health Equipment Used in Combat."

Wonder where that $87 billion went? It didn't go for reconstruction and it didn't go for body armor.

Funny. I've heard most people don't wear the leg armor because it's too restrictive and boils your nuts. It's also only Kevlar, not ceramic plating so it won't do much against a rifle round.

Oh, and that "recently enacted" reimbursement has been around for quite some time (2004, if I remember correctly) in one form or another. Makes me wonder about the date of that article's information or at the very least its accuracy.

<ahem>

Oct. 2005
http://www.airforcetimes.com/print.php?f=1-292925-1157923.php


Any other lies you want to spread?

The agreement which led to that reimbursement was decided upon in 2004, hence the reason why the article mentions a Feb 25, 2005, deadline for implementation. There's no lie, only the knowledge of the original agreement from 2004, not the bureaucratic garbage which came after.

I don't have the time to look into it further, but I seem to recall reading awhile back that troops have been compensated previously for this stuff, perhaps under emergency reimbursement procedures.

You still haven't addressed anything I wrote above. :beer:

 

[conjur]

Why should I waste my time replying to apologist BS?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: piasabird
No matter what kind of body armor they made, it could be made better.

Our soldiers deserve the absolute best at any time.

As if you or someone who writes for the NYT would have any clue as to what the best might be. Stop trolling.

WyteWatt makes some excellent points about the issues surrounding body armor. I've worn the stuff, and I'll be wearing it full time in a few days. It's heavy and hot, and I'm not looking forward to when the temperature starts climbing over there.

However, I won't even be one of those guys wearing the armor PLUS a rifle and ammunition PLUS a radio PLUS grenades PLUS various other pieces of equipment and running and dodging bullets, in that same heat. The load of an infantryman is something like 100lbs despite all the improvements in materials that have been made. Between the helmet and the body armor, that's about 35lbs of it. You want to add more? An exhausted turtle is easy prey.

Incidentally, "just make the plates a little bigger" sounds great, but have you ever seen the size difference between a 25lb and 35lb plate in the weight room? It's not huge. Those ceramic armor plates weigh about 7 lbs each (somewhere around there), and adding a little around the edges could easily increase that weight a couple pounds. Multiply by two, and you're talking 18lbs from the ceramic plates alone. Put some under the arms and some on the shoulders, and you're likely pushing 28lbs of ceramic. Then we're looking at nearly 50lbs from the helmet and body armor. Easy for the liberal chickensh!ts here to talk about how Bush is failing the troops, while they want to pile on weight for guys running around in 120 degree weather.

As for the article in the OP, it's the usual liberal drivel. Let's talk some specifics (even if conjur won't, and darkhawk can't):

The vulnerability of the military's body armor has been known since the start of the war

Cute. Let's mix up a discussion about new armor technology with one about different armor types (flak vests vs. actual body armor for small arms). The initial dick-up at the beginning of the war was folks going into theater with the Vietnam-era vests which are effective against artillery shrapnel as opposed to the Interceptor vests with the SAPI plates. That's fixed (flak vests are still out there -- that's what I was issued for Korea). This latest argument is that the Interceptor vests with the plates (formerly hailed as perfect by liberals) are no long adequate because people are getting killed with shots from the sides. Well, duh. When bullets fly, people die -- they have this nasty habit of finding openings. Are we going to cover troops' faces with ceramic, too? Anyone care to notice that deaths from front and rear torso shots are basically gone??

Anyway, they did notice a problem with the Interceptors because of the seam on the sides where even shrapnel could find a way in. That's something that happens when you use something in combat -- you find out how well it works, and then improve on it. So, they set about making an addition to the vests, and the Air Force came up with some and sent them recently with some Security Forces (USAF cops) from here, Wright-Patterson AFB, for field testing. Read this part: THAT HAPPENED LAST YEAR. Not 2003. Not 2004. 2005, field testing. Now I believe they are in production, but I am not sure if they are modifying the design at all.

Also, if you want to critisize the administration for failing to get things to the troops in time, especially things that need to be developed first, then why don't you stop squawking when things like the Boeing tanker deal happen or when KBR overcharges for food services? See, there's a connection between accurate, detailed, non-fraudulent accounting and speed. If you have the first, you don't have the second. Period. When we're dealing with people, there will always be a criminal element. As long as the mission is accomplished (tools to the troops), big f-ing deal if someone gets some extra cash. We can deal with that later. I work in the acquisitions world right now, and it's a complete and utter waste of taxpayer money. It has nothing to do with the current administration, and everything to do with the nature of government civilians, the nature of the legacy of past acquisitions, Congressional oversight, fear of bad press, and a whole ton of CYA.

Not sure why I looked for a factual discussion of anything in P&N. Saw the story on MSNBC and figured someone would spin it to attack the administration.

These libs live for that and only that. It is all about belonging to a bunch of losers who had power for thirty years, did nothing and finally got the boot, only to whine at every opportunity. Bush is their booger man and if he weren't there and someone else was, the story would be the same unless it was one of their loser liberal leaders. C. Ray Nagin for Pres in 08!

 

[WyteWatt]

Originally posted by: conjur
Why should I waste my time replying to apologist BS?

I see instead of actually debating the issue, you're going back to your old tactic of using political buzzwords to attack people. Hint: words like neocon, apologist, freeper, etc are not clever anymore and do not make you look trendy in the eyes of others AndrewR is a soldier, so I think you can atleast respect his first-hand knowledge instead of resorting to silly political slang words.

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The best man didn't win.

True that.....







SHUX

 

[bluestrobe]

Lets always look back at the past and find the flaws and blame the current times for them. Hind sight is 20/20 but its our fault NOW for it.

 

[maluckey]

Why are the non-soldiers and pacifists up in arms about this?

I am one of the ones wearing rhe stuff, and I'm fine with it. I don't WANT heavier armor. I want better support and logistics. I want idiots to stop posting our ops in the news so that we aren't forced to change tactics every couple of misions. I want people to stop spouting off about things that they have NO KNOWLEDGE of. Cospicuoulsy absent is someone who loves ALL-CAPS....good for him!! His pygmy-chump twin has jumped in with both feet into an arena in which he knows nothing about from the first-hand, but certainly has many opinions about it.

Give me better resupply and communications, better living conditions at the end of the day. BTW... keep my armor, Pro-Mask and MOPP gear in exchage.

 

[VIAN]

America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free!

 

[conjur]

Yeah...Gen. Wesley Clark is such a pacifist of a non-soldier
http://ga4.org/campaign/bodyarmor/ks5k7xrf53n63e?

 

[WyteWatt]

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah...Gen. Wesley Clark is such a pacifist of a non-soldier
http://ga4.org/campaign/bodyarmor/ks5k7xrf53n63e?

General Wesley Clark wants a congressional investigation into this issue. I think that is a fair request made by a General that wants the best for out troops. My personal hope is that congressional investigation will put this whole issue to rest. Based on most of the information in this thread, I think Congress will find that extra body armor is not always the best solution.

 

[stateofbeasley]

To interrupt this little pissing match, I saw an interesting segment on News Hour with Jim Lehrer on the current Interceptor armor and alternatives. There's something called "Dragon Skin" that this company makes:

Defensereview Article

Manufacturer's Site

Pinnacle Armor claims 44% more armor coverage resistant to 7.62 and 5.56mm rifle rounds compared to standard vests with balistic plates. Supposedly it's also more flexible and easier to move around in than the Interceptor.

It's pretty $$$, but one guest on News Hour (a former Marine Lt. Col.) claims that it has proven much more effective with contractors in Iraq than the Interceptor.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I always find it interesting when people who have never worn body armor, or forward deployed, find it politically convenient to suddently speak on behalf of the troops.

Soldiers always have and always will get the short end of the stick...I wish the "outcry" from the American public to take better care of our soldiers existed prior to Iraq...most military units suffer shortages of equipment and manpower, an unfortunate result of winning the Cold War.

 

[da loser]

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley
To interrupt this little pissing match, I saw an interesting segment on News Hour with Jim Lehrer on the current Interceptor armor and alternatives. There's something called "Dragon Skin" that this company makes:

It's pretty $$$, but one guest on News Hour (a former Marine Lt. Col.) claims that it has proven much more effective with contractors in Iraq than the Interceptor.

i went to their website and it seems dod has done quite a bit of research and has actually bought some of the armor for the chinook helicopter.

also "Pinnacle Armor awarded DOD contract for development of
"Flexible-Modular Body Armor For Armor Piercing Protection"

Fresno, CA (July 07, 2003 - 2005 extended) -- Pinnacle Armor announced today that it has been awarded a Phase 2, Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contract by the Department of Defense (DOD) for the development of ?Flexible-Modular Body Armor for Armor Piercing Protection.?

if that's the same as the dragon armor, then this stuff is relatively new. seing as how it may have just completed phase 2. most likely the interceptor vest stuff has been around for at least a decade. also, as the sftt guy suggested, a political element probably had something to do with it, ie senator, R or D, is producing the current stuff in his state therefore the funding was granted.

it'll be interesting if gen. clark gets his investigation, i hope so, the military acquisition system is completely screwed up. but there's no way to fix it because it deals with politicians, jobs, and power. if you privatize it, then you've essentially entrusted a large corp with power, ie Boeing or Lockheed. what's the old saying? democracy is screwed when the voters learn they can print their own money?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Conjur's logic is quite sound, and easy to understand for anyone making a sincere effort. There were two versions of the $87 Billion bill funding Bush's misadventure in Iraq. Both included body armor funding. The difference is that one of the bills was more fiscally responsible than the other. Kerry supported -- voted FOR -- the fiscally responsible version of the bill. Bush did NOT support the responsible version, and threatened to veto it.

It is no more honest to claim "Kerry voted against body armor" than it is to say "Bush threatened to veto body armor". Both statements are techincally true. Both statements are meaningless.

This whole Bush machine smear campaign bleating "Kerry voted against ..." is just another deception, a disturbingly successful attempt to slime Kerry and distract the sheeple from the fact that Bush is so fiscally reckless. That so many here continue to buy into this BS -- or at least continue to parrot it -- is pathetic.

OK - so let's address the other question brought up in the thread. Obviously better body armour would have saved lives. So would have not going to war. (that's my logic and Stunts logic to slightly divert the thread to OT - at the risk of being called a neocon murderer). So did Kerry vote for approval to go to war or not?

I would argue that saying "But Kerry didn't vote to go to war!" is just as deceptive as your example. Maybe even worse so.

Hardly. Congress simply, factually, inarguably did NOT vote to invade Iraq. The vote granted Bush the option to use force. The option. As has been well-documented here many times, Congress granted this approval only after Bush committed to using such military force only after he exhausted all other possible measures. There are contemporaneous statements from Senators indicating they voted for the bill, NOT because they intended to invade Iraq, but because they were trying to show bipartisan support for "our" President and they felt our negotiations with Iraq and the U.N. would be more effective if Bush had the force card in his pocket.

(The Dems were fools. You never turn your back on a scoundrel and you never give a child a loaded gun. They were stabbed in the back for their bipartisanship; America was led into an invasion by the now-armed Cowboy in Chief.)

Once granted the authority, Bush immediately ignored his committments to Congress and America. He made only superficial attempts to work with the U.N. and instead focused attention on preparing for his invasion. It appears he was, at least in part, afraid that the U.N. inspectors continued to find evidence Iraq was being truthful (and BushCo was not), thus undermining his case for invasion. In short, Bush lied to Congress and America about reserving force as a last resort, instead rushing to invade before his phony justifications were exposed.

In fairness, I'm sure some Senators did know up-front Bush was being dishonest, and they truly did "vote to go to war." Asserting Kerry was one of them is partisan speculation, however. Where is your proof that Kerry was one of them, that he knew Bush was lying about reserving invasion as a last resort?

Great post as usual Bow but the Dems wer'nt fooled - you're fooling yourself if you really believe that - they are bought and paid for just like the republicans. The system on the finance and revovling door level is totally broken to encourage and profit from war making.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
I always find it interesting when people who have never worn body armor, or forward deployed, find it politically convenient to suddently speak on behalf of the troops.

Soldiers always have and always will get the short end of the stick...I wish the "outcry" from the American public to take better care of our soldiers existed prior to Iraq...most military units suffer shortages of equipment and manpower, an unfortunate result of winning the Cold War.

Yeah. Esp. when those non-soldiers post articles quoting soldiers and generals and stuff.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
I always find it interesting when people who have never worn body armor, or forward deployed, find it politically convenient to suddently speak on behalf of the troops.

Soldiers always have and always will get the short end of the stick...I wish the "outcry" from the American public to take better care of our soldiers existed prior to Iraq...most military units suffer shortages of equipment and manpower, an unfortunate result of winning the Cold War.

Frankly, American soldiers suffer from the diversion of military funding from non-sexy troop equipment and logistics, to super-sexy (and kickback prone) high-tech weapons systems like advanced fighters and nuc subs. Building up-armoured HumVees, better ballistic protection, better assault rifles - these things just don't generate enough jobs in Congressional districts, so there isn't as much pork to spread around (compared to a nuc sub, etc.). And of course, what congressman or military officer wants to leave government work and get a job with an armour manufacturer in Georgia, when they could get a job as an executive at Boeing after pushing a new plane through?

And as much as we hate to admit it, THAT is how decision making keeps occuring in this country...

Future Shock

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yeah. Esp. when those non-soldiers post articles quoting soldiers and generals and stuff.

Finding an article with a quote from a few soldiers, or even a general officers, is not reflective of how EVERY soldier feels. What soldiers believe and think is as divergent as the opinions on this forum, to include body armor.

troop equipment and logistics, to super-sexy (and kickback prone) high-tech weapons systems like advanced fighters and nuc subs. Building up-armoured HumVees, better ballistic protection, better assault rifles - these things just don't generate enough jobs in Congressional districts, so there isn't as much pork to spread around (compared to a nuc sub, etc.)

There is no doubt that pork barrel spending plays a huge role in the prioritization of government contracts. However, as far as the body armor issue is concerned, the misinformed "outcry" from the Bush bashing crowd is simply another manifestation of partisan bickering.

The body armor vests my unit had were heavy, cumbersome and not particularly effective. Many soldiers actually laundered their vests, due to their getting filthy in the field or in preparation for layout inspections...which deteriorated the effectiveness of the body armor fibers within...similarly, the effectiveness of the armor plates were deteriorated due to soldiers constantly folding them to fit in various storage compartments, or in their rucksacks.

Some of the latest armored vest technologies can stop indirect or even direct hits from some ballistic rounds and some shrapnel...even the best technologies out there cannot stop the damage inflicted by a direct hit from an IED, except for the most rare of instances.

However, having a soldier's mother report on the news that she had to send her son in Iraq body armor makes for great sensationalist entertainment.

And as much as we hate to admit it, THAT is how decision making keeps occuring in this country...

You are right...however, the outcry for better support of our soldiers should not be limited to times of war...had there been a public outrage to these supply and contracting issues during times of peace, our soldiers might actually have what they need in times of war.

Then again, American soldiers have never gone to war with the technologies and supplies they require to survive...it is somewhat part of the American cultural tradition of not maintaining a large standing army in times of peace.