Improved Armored Vests Reflect Changing Enemy Tactics

American Forces Press Service ^ | Jan 12, 2005 | Gerry Gilmore

[SandRat]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12, 2006 – U.S. military members serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and other dangerous locales will soon receive revamped armored vests that provide more side protection, senior officials said here today. The vest changes are designed to prove effective in protecting servicemembers from shrapnel fragments, especially those who man gun turrets atop vehicles, Maj. Gen. Stephen Speakes, the Army's director of force development, said during a teleconference call with military analysts.

"What we're seeing, obviously, is continuing evolutions in the nature of the threat that we face," Speakes said. The shrapnel-producing improvised explosive devices and other terrorist weapons encountered by U.S. forces in Iraq, he said, have prompted changes in servicemembers' armored vests.

Stepped improvements made to armored vests are the result of continual adaptation in response to constantly changing enemy tactics, Speakes said.

He countered media reports that say the U.S. military is behind the power curve in providing appropriate force protection gear for troops deployed to Iraq and elsewhere in the global war against terrorism.

"Those headlines entirely miss the point," Speakes said. The effort to improve body armor "has been a programmatic effort in the case of the Army that has gone on with great intensity for the last five months," he noted.

The enhanced vests are carefully designed so infantrymen, truckers or troops in any other military occupational specialty can use them, Speakes said, including servicemembers of both sexes.

The improved vests should be fielded to servicemembers sometime this spring, Speakes said.

"The protection of soldiers is our No. 1 mission," Speakes said. "Continuous evolution of this protection is absolutely essential."

It's equally important to take servicemembers' needs into account when designing force-protection equipment, said Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, the deputy for acquisition and systems management in the office of the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology.

For example, heavy, bulky armor can compromise a servicemember's need to move quickly during combat conditions, Sorenson said, as well as tax physical endurance.

He said providing better armored vests for servicemembers represents just one portion of military force-protection capabilities.

"We've (also) done the armoring of the vehicles," Sorenson said. The U.S. military, he added, also has developed and fielded electronic countermeasures to find and defeat IEDs.

"All these are generated to try to improve a soldiers' ability to be better protected with respect to force protection," Sorenson said.

[SandRat]

Yet Sen. Shrillery will claim it's because she's screeching.

[SandRat]

Improving troop body armor protection

[RKV]

Why do you think my LAPD officer brother worries about punks learning to shoot for his head? Could it be that widespread knowledge of our use of body armor changes our enemies tactics? That is what he seems to think.

[Tyche]

"The protection of soldiers is our No. 1 mission," Speakes said.

I would disagree. When we first discovered that the terrorist were using cell phones to activate IAD's we chose not to turn of cell coverage in those areas.

Of course, terrorist use different devices now. But in the beginning we chose commerce over protection. Since are Military isn't based on that technology it would not have affected us in any way.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[Lurker]

I remember the stuff we got back in the 80's. It was absolutely awful to wear. Hot, uncomfortable, unadjustable, and marginally effective were just a few of the more polite adjectives we used to describe it.

I now own a SafariLand Level IIA Gold vest that is light years ahead of the old flak jackets we were issued. It will stop .44 mags and shotgun slugs but it would be pretty much useless against IED shrapnel.

What most people don't realize is that for the military to research, develop, and deploy a new piece of equipment in a year is almost unheard of in terms of speed. Whoever is in charge of this program deserves either a promotion or a medal, maybe both.

Thanks for these great stories SandRat. I really enjoy reading them.

L

[SandRat]

The Troops deserve one more thing that he be KEPT AROUND! To hell with "up-or-out, mandatory-at-30" or any of that sort of OPM craziness.

The Troops deserve that this Guy, heck this whole team be kept around.

[Lurker]

Anybody who can get a program through DOD procurement in a year is some kind of genius, that's for sure.

Keep 'em. Hell they ought to promote 'em and pin some kind of DOD REMF medal on 'em.

L

[SLB]

Body protection from IED fragments is required, but eye protection is also absolutely necessary. I was the test officer for some ballistic goggles for Army use 10 years ago. The size and speed of the fragments they would stop is classified, but the "powers to be" decided they were too expensive.

[Lurker]

Seems to me some of those "PTB" types should be riding around in Baghdad with standard issue eye protection for a couple of weeks.

Permanent blindness might just give 'em a new outlook on the problem. (Hey, I made a funny...)

L

[SandRat]

Figures!!! And the Powers weren't wearing uniforms and probably never had.