Posted on 02/05/2009 4:57:27 AM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner
Concerned that U.S. troops are already saddled with too much heavy gear, military officials will not require them to wear improved body armor until manufacturers cut the weight of the new protective plates.
The Army plans to buy 120,000 sets of the advanced bullet-blocking plates this year. This initial purchase of the plates, known as "XSAPI," will be stocked in Kuwait and be available if commanders need them, service officials said at a congressional hearing Wednesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
What about a longer life?
Terrific...even heavier plates...
ESAPIs saved lives, there’s no doubt about it. I wonder what the XSAPIs are meant to stop? Anyway, I do take exception with this article. When you’re carrying that much weight, one more pound really won’t matter much. That’s an extra battery for your MBITR radio. A pack of extra AAs. A spare mag for a 9mm. It’s just not that much weight. Call me when they shave something like 20 pounds off the kit, then I’ll start getting excited.
I guess as long as we’re fighting in deserts it’s okay. Try carrying that armor in a swamp or riverine environment.
Waddling around in combat does not necessarily equate to longer life.
Some of the armor configurations, including groin protector, femoral armor, and shoulder armor, make the wearer an incredibly slow moving target.
At some point you have to look at the facts/figures/statistics and make a choice between armor or maneuverability.
Didn’t we have this debate a few years ago?
I didn't mean it was a panacea.
There will always be war.
There will always be new armor to talk about.
And new weapons.
The debate is perpetual.
Depends. Is it better to be more bullet resistant or to not get hit in the first place? A lot of marines have decided that more mobility is better than heavier armor.
Now, if they’ll just hurry up and produce Power Assisted Personal Armament (PAPA) we’ll be cool!
Sorry about that.
Didn’t mean to sound harsh.
It’s just a constant battle of trade-offs.
Commanders are under pressure to “reduce” (eliminate - yeah) casualties, so they request and require additional armor.
I agree. You didn't sound harsh at all, I know where you're coming from.
Pete
Always tradeoffs...extra weight means less mobility, more inclination to fatigue and heat stress.
Yeah, in Iraq it’s not a big deal. The mountains of Afghanistan and the environments you’re talking about? I’d be tempted to ditch it and take my chances...
If you’re riding a vehicle or sitting behind a MG in a firebase, I think I’d wear every scrap of armor I could find. But for running around, climbing obstacles, working around water etc, the tradeoffs become more obvious.
It’s a problem as old as soldiering, going back at least to the Greeks.
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.