Posted on 01/12/2006 7:48:51 AM PST by wouldntbprudent
WASHINGTON - Beefing up the body armor worn by U.S. troops in Iraq might actually make their job more dangerous, Army and Marine generals said Wednesday.
"We must not burden our soldiers with weight to the point that they become ineffective and susceptible to other dangers," said Maj. Gen. Stephen Speakes, the Army's director of force development.
He and other officers were seeking to quell a firestorm over a military pathology report that suggested as many as 80 percent of 401 Marine deaths from torso wounds might have been prevented by better side, shoulder and neck protection.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
What do the front line troops say? That's what really matters.
a little armor that is worn is far more effective than a lot of armor that isn't.
I've read it was soldiers who brought up this issue. They felt they were less safe when their mobility was compromised by this too-heavy armor.
And your point is well-taken: this issue has been so politicized. That is very harmful to our troops.
The everlasting debate of speed and mobility versus armor.
Harkens back to the days when the French encountered the English Long Bow.
Our technology will evolve. War brings out the worst and best of innovation and technology.
I just start screaming at the TV when they start these kinds of stories. It's become an epidemic.
By their reasoning, we should all drive tanks at 20 MPH because there would be fewer traffic deaths.
Ironic that the people who released the study on the body armor, most likely haven't worn it in theater.
This thing is heavy, and doesn't get lighter as it gets warm.
They're sayin' the stuff weighs too much. Their combat load is gettin' up around 100 lbs.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20060112.aspx
Opposition is runnin' at about 30 lbs. Its easier for 'em to use innocent bystanders as armor.
Need lighter armor, weapons and/or ammo.
With the yoke and collar assembly on the USMC Interceptor vest it is damn near impossible to turn your head from side to side.
Also heavier and bulkier armor makes it much more difficult to use a weapon properly. Until the armor can be improved to be lighter and less bulky it may not be possible to improve protection.
It appears to be mixed. Some soldiers are saying any more armor and they could not move fast enough; others are saying they would use whatever they could get their hands on. Michelle Malkin as a good summary of it here:
http://jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin011106.php3
I remember what happened to the Knights of old; the body armor worked great until the enemy changed tactics and used cross bows. Whatever we do; it is the nature of the enemy to find and exploit weaknesses; and adding even more weight to our soldiers may enable them to exploit a new weakness......exhausted soldiers.
It depends if I am riding or driving.
But it works, and is gladly worn.
Yes, they will keep developing prototypes until they get it right. In the meantime, it would be helpful if ignorant pols like the Hildebeast would just shut up!
Speaking of innovation and technology, don't have the link, but the other day I read about this product that is basically like big bubble bubble wrap, except the "bubbles" are filled with perlite (yes, the stuff you put in your garden). Apparently this stuff, in this configuration, can absorb very last amounts of energy, such as from bomb blasts. So they are using it to line trash cans on metro platforms, etc. in Washington, D.c.
IOW, to contain any blasts from a bomb that may be left in the container.
I thought maybe there's a way to incorporate that into military vehicles (replacing the old sandbags on the floor of the humvee routine).
that is so true - this debate will go on forever
Sure. They are called muzzle-loaders.
I say give the soldiers what they want and if they don't want something, fine. Keep the Dims and MSM out of it.
Body armor came and went once. It will do it again, for the same reasons. Warriers just have to bear the risks of battle.
The troops prefer 7.62 over what they've got. I remember reading a comment by an SAS sargeant-major after the Falklands conflict: "They told us that the M-16 would allow us to have more ammo. It took three shots to drop the enemy while they dropped us with one. Of course, they are still using the FAL. I do remember that the FAL weighed an awful lot, espectially on a long road march. I don't have any recollection of it weighing anything in combat."
There are tricks they can try - polymer cases on the ammo for instance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.