http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060326/ap_on_...aq_unused_armor

According to this news article, some soldiers are opting not to wear additional body armor because of the heavy loads that they are carrying. I'm no military man but can certainly say that too much armor can be as dangerous as having no armor. After all, you have to be able to move in order to fight. The Battleships at Pearl Harbor are a good example.

So,

Should the politicians be able to mandate the use of extra body armor?

That seems to be a decision best left to the troops and their commanders. They are the ones fighting the war and I'll bet they have a better knowledge of combat than our congressmen. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Politicans becoming involved on the operational level of any military objective can be the end of effectiveness. Just look at Vietnam...

Politicians start wars, but soldiers on the ground end them. I can empathize with the weight carried by Marines (as I am one), even though I personally haven't used the new armor.

I would say that NCO's in the field, coupled with experienced field officers should make the decisions based upon the functions of their units. For instance, while I was in Afghanistan, we spent time guarding a checkpoint, where most of our time was spent standing in a stationary position. I might've asked that my men wore the armor. We weren't running through the streets except on a couple of occasions. However, if speed is a necessary factor for finishing missions or keeping the men alive and the 10lbs makes a difference, I'd say to toss them.

The irony of protective equipment is that we have to address the bravado of Marines. It's a lot like seat belts, as many people don't want to wear them even now. Maybe it makes sense, but also makes people less comfortable. These plates obviously don't help with the heat and comfort factor... but I'd imagine that we shouldn't necessarily FORCE anyone to wear them... as the Lt on the article eloquently stated... anyone losing a kidney (or whatever else) might have wished that they'd worn the armor... this is a debate I know some commanders have had with helmets. Some guys just don't like the heat factor...

Should the politicians be able to mandate the use of extra body armor?

The additional armor in question are the SAPI plates, neck, ribcage, crotch and upper arm add-ons (the Armor Protection Enhancement System and Deltoid and Axillary Protectors). These plates of boron carbide ceramic and pieces of kevlar, while surely providing some amount of protection seriously inhibit movement, and in some cases, well aimed fire. Additionally, many functions in the Army and Marine Corps require us to move light and fast, such as reconnaissance missions.
Politicians sitting comfortably two thousand miles away in Washington should not be allowed, in any way, shape or form to dictate tactical matters at the lower echelons. Either they trust the Officers who they bestowed a commission on, and the experienced Non-Commissioned officers.....or they don't.

But we all know the genesis of this news item. The ridiculous outcry that we sent our soldiers into harms way without any or proper body armor. The lost and clueless have no care for the facts, only that their politically driven battle cry be heard. Speaking from frontline experience in the Infantry for the last 20 years, body armor (or 'flak vests) have not been used as standard operating procedure during the majority of that time. The paradigm started to shift after 1993 and Somalia, when the Ranger Regiment was issued Ranger Body Armor, or RBA. It was effective but cumbersome, and as I understand it, their experience with it was used by the Soldier Systems Center in Natick, Ma......to test develop what is now known as the Interceptor IBA, manufactured by Point Blank Body Armor, inc.
The Interceptor IBA had not started to be fielded to the majority of Army units until late 2001/early 2002. Add to that, the clear majority of conflict scenarios did not place an overwhelming weight on equipping soldiers with the IBA. I had carried around, or usually stored the previous version of the kevlar vest for many years, and wore it only sporadically. In every conflict some new threat or new paradigm emerges. In the Iraq war it was IED's/VBIED's. In no other conflict had we faced quite the same enemy and tactic. To categorically state that all soldiers should have had IBA issued to them prior to the start of the Iraq war is akin to saying that in WWII all Sherman tanks should have had dozer, or rhino attachments to break through Bocage country......prior to WWII.
Many who proclaim loudly that all soldiers should wear the IBA and all additions, likely haven't been on a combat patrol with a full load of ammo, IBA w/SAPI plates, helmet, load bearing rack, camelbak, assault pack, knee and elbow pads, commo gear, hooligan tools, medic packs.....running.....kneeling....laying down...vaulting walls.....entering and clearing buildings....all in the desert heat. Not that I'm complaining
Protective gear has it's time and place, to be sure. And it should remain a common sense call by the leadership on the ground, factoring in the mission and environmental conditions, on what amount of pro gear to wear.
I personally believe that the standard IBA and helmet should remain on all missions except recons, and add to that the issued or purchased Wiley-X or Revision Sawfly eye protection that has been proven to stop fragments from explosives.

But that's just my humble opinion.

My daughter and son-in-law are there now. My daughter goes on vehicular patrols as a regular assignment, including today.

She is the 1SG's gunner and the IBA doesn't fit her. She is about 5'2" and weights a whole 105lbs. I have heard her complaints about the IBA, which she does wear. It seems that there are no sizes small enough for her. She also has to wear modified equipment harness because she can not fit the required ammunition pouches due to lack of waist size. The soldiers on the foot patrols face the issue of heat and weight.

I will join the rest and state that politicians' jobs are to make sure the soldiers have the gear they need. Let the soldiers decide what that is and how to use it.

Should body armor be mandatory?

If only every war supporter of suitable age for military service would be sent to fight in Iraq, I would be very happy to support increased taxes to pay for all necessary armor. However, I would also be entirely happy if they exercised their right not to wear any.

It's funny how one time I was in an argument with someone over this. That flag-saluting couch-potato-armchair warrior argued that body armor wasn't all it's cut out to be. It's too heavy and makes the grunt too immobile, so it's better to concentrate on (he really honest to God said this) evading and dodging the bullets being shot at them. Yes, it's better to outrun a bullet rather than wear something that will stop it.
As a non-military man I can say with pure conviction that body armor is better than none. Why? Because it stops steel projectiles from piercing my flesh and causing serious body trauma. If it's too heavy, I have the option of taking some off. If it's too hot, I have the option of taking some off. Dead, I have no options.

The issue that upsets soldiers more than having to or deciding to wear the add-ons to the Interceptor IBA is the possibility that there is better and more flexible body armor on the market, but we are not allowed to wear it.
The Army procurement system has never been very responsive to the requests and suggestions from the trenches, though lately it seems to have gotten better. I believe the problem lies in that the Army bureaucracy is a slow moving behemoth. I would implore anyone who is in the habit or thinking about contacting their representative to include an appeal to investigate the viability of Dragon Skin body armor, manufactured by Pinnacle Armor. Several seasoned operators have purchased this IBA and used it with great effectiveness in Iraq and Afghanistan. Recently however, DoD has mandated that soldiers stop wearing it, and stated that if killed wearing Dragon Skin, the death benefit may not be paid out to the family.
Dragon Skin weighs 1.2 pounds more than Interceptor, but since the vest fits closer, and 'moves' with you, one doesn't generate as much body heat during typical operations.
Now, normally I agree with the edict of not replacing your combat and survival gear with just anything one can pick up off of the internet, but the testimonials of people that I know and trust, and that of people whose credentials I put stock in have led me to believe that DoD should test and evaluate Dragon Skin as an alternative or replacement to the Interceptor.


Except nobody here or in the quoted article is suggesting that soldiers wear no body armor.
What I find funny is how often you bandy about that term. Isn't anyone who is not in the military, but comments, debates, pontificates on or analyzes military/foreign policy.......an armchair warrior? Like.......you?

Well, actually thats not true either. Apart from the cumbersome factor and the heat factor, the other thing nobody has mentioned so far is the limited protection factor. Modern FDI Body armour is better than older types at stopping high velocity rounds, but they still do not prevent puncture by direct impact from heavy rifle rounds, like for example, the AK-74 or AKM, standard weapons most US sodiers will be taking for from. They are also useless against close explosions or IEDs. Where they excel is against smaller arms, such as pistol rounds, low velocity rifle rounds, such as ones fired at long range, and of course shrapnel.



Regardless of all this, I think the issue here is not wheither body armour protects or not or how much, but that soldiers should be equipped with it as a matter of course, and if they choose to wear it or not thats their perodative.

The democrats of course do not stop with body armour, the need for far more light armoured vehicles for anti-insurgency duty is paramount, such as Bradleys and Humvees. The US military in Iraq is currently over 1000 Hummvees short of its TO&E due to losses in combat and delayed replacements, and many of those currently deployed in Iraq are unarmoured versions rushed there as rapid replacements.

I agree with you completely, though I don't see the Democrat specific connection. We do need a mission specific vehicle to this type of conflict. Personally, I believe that the Stryker platform would fit the bill, not to replace the HMMWV, but to augment and use in critical environments.
The problem with the HMMWV is that while it was a great replacement for the Jeep, it was not designed for nor was this type of IED environment anticipated. Armoring these vehicles has worked moderately well, but at the cost of decreased lifespan, increased maintenance downtime, and limited mobility.

And you are correct, the IBA is not designed to stop non-oblique 7.62 rounds from penetration, but have worked well against fragmentation blasts. There is really no realistic armor yet designed that can accomplish that. But there have been some unbelievable tales of survival attributed to IBA, the kevlar ballistic helmet, and eye protection.

This is the same argument I recall from the Vietnam War. In HOT climates men are reluctant to wear armor if they feel it is not needed. The decision should be up to commanders on the ground and not politicians. I find it amusing that we hear this now after the (IMO politically motivated) flap over not having enough of it. Certainly mobility is important in combat and “armor” does not and can not cover all parts of the body.

It is too late for the Bradley’s and HUMVEE vehicles. The HUMVEE in particular was not designed for the heavy armor it now carries and I have heard of deaths related to the unwieldiness of the vehicles as currently armored. Only time will tell if the “upgrade” was worth it

No, body armor should not be mandatory. I mean honestly, if you're years of military training have failed you to the point where you actually get shot then you have wasted the governments money and you deserve to die.

Well, no its not quite the same as during Vietnam. The body armour available in the vietnam war had not changed since the Korean war and was utterly useless against any kind of high-velocity round, even at oblique angles. Given the nature of the war, that made them pretty close to useless, in particular given that they were heavier and hotter to wear than modern equipment.



The commanders on the ground have been calling for better body armour for years now. Major General William Catto, Brig Gen Mark Kimmitt and many others have been calling for this stuff. The army is speaking, the administration is not listening. They have even admitted their error on occasions:


"The army had planned to give the plates only to front-line soldiers. Officials now concede that they underestimated the insurgency's strength and commitment to fighting a war in which there are no back lines."

Herald tribune International, Aug 15, 2005.




Firstly, exactly how is it 'too late' for the operational requirements of the US military for light armoured vehicles to be met?

Secondly, you are mistaken, the Humvee was designed as an armoured vehicle, and it was designed to take heavy armour kits produced by the same company. However, few to none of these heavy armour kits have been supplied to the troops in Iraq, forcing them to use improvised armour, sandbags and scrap metal to protect themselves.

The reality is the people on the ground in Iraq, the military staff (who you just said should be the ones to make the decisions) have been calling for this equipment for ages now. It has not been delivered.

And furthermore, lets also keep in mind that this is not just a problem of the army asking for 'extras'. The army is asking simply to be brought up to its basic TO&E. They are over a thousand HUMVEEs short of their basic allotment, and replacements are not arriving.

Actually, you are mistaken on this point. the HMMWV was never designed to stand up to the rigors of front line combat. It was specifically intended to replace the all purpose Jeep. The HMMWV can come configured as a troop carrier, command vehicle, ambulance and weapons platform, among others. But it was never designed with the intent of surviving what are essentially landmines.....IED's.

While you would be correct if you stated that it was not until mid to late 2003 that a requirement for armor kits was identified, your assumption of the current status of up armor kits in theater is completely off base. The vast majority of HMMWV's operating in Iraq have one of the armor kits available (that would be thousands), whether it's the field mounted kit, or it came from a depot up-armored.
Here is a pretty decent overview of the HMMWV.

Should the politicians be able to mandate the use of extra body armor?

No for sure! A politician is usually not qualified, or current, in military science, art, doctrine, survivability technical models or combat. As such, we don't want him to be able to make such determinations.

So also, a senior bureaucrat is usually not qualified, or current, in military science, art, doctrine, survivability technical models or combat. As such, we don't want him to be able to make such determinations either. So who does?

The immediate combat commander should make it as part of his combat order, because, if done right, that decision will be based on the degree to which mission completion/success is affected.

The man in combat, can over-ride the commanders "order" based on his immediate situation. Only the guy in the situation knows its reality and I give him the over-ride duty and responsibility. (I can hear the military court martialists screaming already!)

There are equations for lethality and survivability in combat. Roughly, 1) the smaller a target one is, 2) the faster one moves, 3) the more erratically one moves, 4) the "harder" one is to kill/disable, and 5) the better the equipment/food/ammo one carries (appropriate to the mission or situation), the better one "survives" to fulfill the "mission". But, heavy loads, though increasing survivability in the last two, reduce survivability in the first three. So it's a trade off.

I've lived this in combat and done this science, so my tutorial is not "out of the blue" and I hope It will be well considered.

The sleeper is that these same issues exist for the decisions on procurement of equipment for the military. But the politicians and bureaucrats make these decisions, and they are made, in my experience, without these tradeoffs being adequately modeled or communicated to them well enough for them to make a "good" and well informed decision. The Federal Acquisition Regulations are woefully inadequate in this regard I believe!

(Time for America's Debate to kick in!)

It's a formidable point but I'd like to add more. I don't think it should be mandatory because that would psychologically enforce a bind on someone, which would probably make some uncomfortable and rather unhappy. Though, when you're in such a hostile, war-zone type of environment such as Iraq, with in reality has no civility what-so-ever, you should strongly consider the option to wear body armor, which eventually would most likely save your life. If you don't care enough about yourself to wear the body armor, you stereotypically and realistically have no will to live and are basically recieving your ticket to death. No passing go and collecting $200, just... death.

Its amazing how, if we don’t like someone like Bush he gets blamed for everything. If you knew anything about the development of military systems including body armor you could not blame “the administration”. The Pentagon is where the programs start and it takes a decade or more to get to full production. See below for body armor details.

The same is true for the HUMVEE. To add the armor needed for the “front line” would require a redesign of the vehicle. The current up armored vehicle is a stop gap.
http://www.olive-drab.com/od_soldiers_gear...interceptor.php
In the late 1990s, an Army and Marine Corps team produced the Interceptor Multi-Threat Body Armor System that provided improved protection while weighing about ten pounds less than its predecessor, the Personal Armor Systems, Ground Troops (PASGT) flak vest. The Interceptor system was put into quantity production for troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq (Iraq photo, left, courtesy Matthew Kotarski).
The Interceptor Multi-Threat Body Armor System is made up of two main modular components: the outer tactical vest (OTV) and the small-arms protective inserts (SAPI). The unisex Kevlar OTV is also equipped with removable throat and groin protectors. With the front and back SAPI ceramic plates inserted, the vest can stop 7.62 mm rounds.
Origins of the Interceptor Flak Vest
Interceptor Body Armor stems from the 1994-vintage 24-pound Ranger Body Armor (RBA) designed by the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center (Natick, MA) at the request of the 75th Ranger Regiment. The 9-pound RBA vest gives the wearer high quality handgun ballistic and fragmentation protection. With the addition of 7.5-pound aluminum oxide ceramic armor plates placed in the front and back chest pockets, the RBA wearer is further protected from armor piercing rifle ammunition. The success of RBA led to a materials research program to achieve the same performance with less weight. The RBA vests continued in Army inventory through the early phase of the Iraq War, until replaced by Interceptor.

The Interceptor Multi-Threat Body Armor System went into production in 1999 under a five-year contract awarded by U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center to Point Blank Body Armor of Oakland Park, FL.
The new Interceptor body armor is being worn by soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army and Marines rushed to get enough body armor into Iraq and Afghanistan by December 2003 for everyone who needed it, as fast as it came off the assembly line.

Obviously they did not meet all the delivery requirements. It’s ironic that after all of this we are now discussing “forcing” soldiers to wear the stuff.

This is absolute nonsense. What amazes me is how unwilling people were to hold Bush accountable, particularly before his poll numbers started going south in July, 2005.

Note the following from a Department of Defense webpage:

The Department of Defense (DoD) (DoD Directive 5100.1) is responsible for providing the military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of the United States. The major elements of these forces are the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. Under the President, who is also Commander-in-Chief, the Secretary of Defense exercises authority, direction, and control over the Department which includes the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, three Military Departments, nine Unified Combatant Commands, the DoD Inspector General, fifteen Defense Agencies, and seven DoD Field Activities. (See DoD chart.)

The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy advisor to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct and primary concern to the DoD, and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense.

http://www.defenselink.mil/odam/omp/pubs/G...%20of%20Defense

Also note the DOD organizational chart. The top officer is the Secretary of Defense. Sadly the office is STILL occupied by Donald Rumsfeld.

http://www.defenselink.mil/odam/omp/pubs/G...ook/Pdf/DoD.PDF
Note: This is a PDF file.

You can call it Bush bashing if you wish Ted, but just as in Harry Truman’s Day the buck stops at the president’s desk. Bush appointed Rumsfeld. The Pentagon is under the direction of Rumsfeld who advises the president. Current clamor is to remove Rumsfeld…

http://crawfordslist.blogspot.com/

but Bush still supports him.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...4/20060414.html
I included the whole endorsement rather than cut up with snippets. I assume this is public domain.

The president is responsible for the quality of people he puts in his cabinet and is ultimately responsible if they don’t perform well. As with Truman the buck stops or should stop with Bush.

I assume you think was witty but it fails on many levels. By your words, it sounds as though you're saying anyone not in the military has no right to speak of such matters. Never mind that my words reflect the desire to save lives and not to take them. You would be correct had I been a war mongering fellow who wishes hellfire violence and carnage upon others I perceive to be my "enemies". But I speak not of killing people but rather to preserve the lives of our western troops in Iraq.
And analyzing foreign policy. Excuse me if I have an opinion about the killing of innocent civilians.
Finally, people consider this and consider it well. Had I been in control, or had my opinions been considered at the highest levels, there would be over 2500 GI's still among the living, over 100,000 innocent civilians, many women and babies, would still be among the living, and over 25,000 GI's would not be walking wounded, to say nothing of the thousand-plus multiple amputees which must bear such a legacy. Add the number of lives that would have been preserved had I been in charge. I can help. Find any casualty list out there, look at the number of dead and wounded, then add all of them up.

And your point is???? How long does it take to deliver a vehicle upgrade or new weapons system to the field?? To you know? Try 4-10 years. I don’t care if god was president the reality is you go to war with what you have and work on improving it. This was true in every war ever fought. The “re-armored” HUMVEE is a pig to drive and overall a bad solution to the problem but one that has saved lives. Real “systems” to defeat RPGs are in the works but will take years to fully field.

The Trophy technology penetrates the housing of RPGs and enemy rockets and disables them--often without detonation.
The system is said to be ready for deployment on coalition vehicles and ships to defend against high explosive antitank-type threats, with the idea to provide more options to deal with the chaos of urban combat.
Rumsfeld's Office of Force Transformation is working with with the U.S. Army's Futures Center to develop, test and integrate the new system and deploy it quickly.


http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/04...04052006/180970


So do we “blame” someone because it was not available in 2003? A stupid idea in general. Our military had numerous new systems in 2003 that saved lives in Iraq. Instead of giving credit to the good work we concentrate on any shortcoming. This may be human nature but that does not make it right.