Army Bans Use of (ALL) Privately Bought Armor

[Bark Bark Bark]

Here we go again. They didn't provide armor--and now they won't let soldiers wear the armor they bought.

http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/news/story.psp?cat=51180&id=2006033018170001373988

WASHINGTON (AP) - Soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear body armor other than the protective gear issued by the military, Army officials said Thursday, the latest twist in a running battle over the equipment the Pentagon gives its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Army officials told The Associated Press that the order was prompted by concerns that soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial armor from private companies - including the popular Dragon Skin gear made by California-based Pinnacle Armor.

"We're very concerned that people are spending their hard-earned money on something that doesn't provide the level of protection that the Army requires people to wear. So they're, frankly, wasting their money on substandard stuff," said Col. Thomas Spoehr, director of materiel for the Army.

Keep reading. There's more. But keep a bucket handy.

[Roland99]

1. Rieckoff...that name rings a bell for some reason.

[JuniperLea]

2. If I were a Iraqi soldier's mother

I'd be smashing things right now! I just can't believe how callous and cruel these bastards are! No, we won't give you proper equipment and your folks can't either!

How can you call it "substandard stuff" when the stuff most of the families are sending is the stuff the officers wear?


Bull. Fucking. Shit!

[BrentWill1]

16. Officers and soliders

They both get the same body armor from the army.

[JuniperLea]

24. No they don't

We had many an article here on the subject. I'm convinced that is not the case. I don't have time to google a bunch of reports again, but I assure you, that was a hot and heavily debated issue around here for quite a while.

[BrentWill1]

30. Nope, wrong

Yes they are, at least when it comes to body armor. Sometimes, you are right, the equipment between officer and solider may be differ if the mission requires it. For example, the army has two different types of NODS it uses. PVS-7s and PVS-14s. If a platoon does not have enough PVS-14s to outfit all their soldiers, they will give the leadership PVS-14s because it is more important for the leadership of that platoon to see at night so they can maneuver the platoon.

[Joe Chi Minh]

145. Anyway, would that be a signifcant point in their favour?

Two deaths or maimings for the price of one? Are you without shame?

[Horse with no Name]

3. "substandard" is 100 times better than what the army supplied

Which is absolutely nothing.
This makes me sick.

[Rude Horner]

4. This, combined with updated articles

about the Pentagon still not providing adequate armor should be splashed on the front pages for all the Shrub lovers to see.

If I was these soldiers families, I'd tell the Pentagon to shove it, and I'd be making a HELL of a lot of noise to the press about this!

[Ian David]

126. Who wants to leaflet the cars at the Veterans Administration? n/t

[MidwestTransplant]

5. Sub standard but does more to stop a bullet than flesh I bet.

[DRoseDARs]

6. "So they're, frankly, wasting their money on substandard stuff..."

Erm, I'd rather have "substandard" armor bought by my family than the "non-existent" armor provided by the Pentagon. Duh. :crazy:

[HeeBGBz]

7. Anything not made by Halliburton

[Tight_rope]

132. Ding! Ding! Ding!....We have a win! n/t

[NanceGreggs]

8. "Support the troops."

I wonder how many of those bumper-stickers on the cars of Bushites have saved lives?

As with everything with this Administration, it's not what you DO - it's what you SAY that counts.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

121. Support the troops stickers?

Yea... how much of the sale of these things go to our brave solders?
also how many are made in U.S.A ?>>>>>>>> "NONE"

[arcane1]

9. the Army probably buys it at a 300% mark-up

and they are pissed for not getting their kick-backs

[KamaAina]

10. I guess Pinnacle Armor forgot to send their donation to the RNC

that automatically makes their gear "substandard" :sarcasm:

[karlrschneider]

11. So, according to these bastards, nothing is better than something?

I better not write what I am thinking right now.
:grr: :grr: :grr:

[lovelaureng]

12. Typical Army BS! nt

[Tommy_J]

13. Unbelievable! K & R

[Media_Lies_Daily]

14. That's a stinking load of total crap.

[BrentWill1]

15. You don't really understand the situration on the ground

No one goes into IRaq without body armor, which means they have a flac vest with plates and a kevlar. Some units may be going into combat with M998 instead of M1114, but when it comes to the body armor issue, the issue is solved.

[Boomer]

18. Hail the party line!

Obviously the soldiers themselves are lying when they claim they don't have armor, and their families are delusional when they scrabble together a few thousand dollars to make up the shortfall their sons and daughters have asked for.

Gee, maybe they lost them in poker games....

[BrentWill1]

21. No, not at all

It is no party line. I am no republican. However, I am a solider who has spent one year in Ramadi and will deploy again to a MiTT team. I know they all have armor because I have seen the situation with my own eyes.

[brentspeak]

29. I don't get it.

Why would the families be sending armor overseas if the troops already have armor?

[BrentWill1]

33. Because they want a different type of body armor

The army has tested the plates and suits they provide. They know that it will stop at least a 7.62 round. They do not know if this armor that soldiers want to buy (Many times soldiers like it because it is more comfortable) will stop a 7.62 round.

[brentspeak]

34. All right, I guess that makes sense

A recent article I read discussed how some Marines have jettisoned their armor because they find it too cumbersome.

[LittleClarkie]

37. I wish I could remember the name of the armor

I'd heard that the brass was "testing" -- something with the word "dragon" in it. Dragon skin?

If I can find a link to the article I read, I'll post it. But the armor the higher ups was "testing" was definitely supposed to be of a higher grade than what was being given to the troops.

[MADem]

112. Pinnacle makes Dragon Skin

http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/sov.php

[Higans]

149. according to that site, Dragon Skin will stop a 7.62 round and it covers

more body area then the standard armor that Halliburton, I mean the military, offers.

[FogerRox]

88. I dont buy what you are selling.

Why on earth would a soldier spend money on comfort that doesnt stop a 7.62? Everything Ive read stateside indicates that the trend is to buy better.

So you are saying that guys dont want those extra panels, because it gets too hot...... they would rather be conmfortable. VS. being cool and shot.

TOO many soldiers have been interviewed an Pacifica & AAR. In 2006. And they do not confirm what you have said.

Vendors dont give new super duper armor to officers to test?

[MADem]

111. It's way more comfortable, and there are different levels of protection

http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/sov.php It's an issue when the temp gets very hot.

[MADem]

114. The Marines do not fall under this requirement yet

...The Army ban covers all commercial armor. It refers specifically to Pinnacle's armor, saying, "In its current state of development, Dragon Skin's capabilities do not meet Army requirements."

The Marine Corps has not issued a similar directive, but Marines are "encouraged to wear Marine Corps-issued body armor since this armor has been tested to meet fleet standards," spokesman Bruce Scott said.

Military officials have acknowledged that some troops often National Guard members or Reservists went to war with lesser-quality protective gear than other soldiers were issued.
"We'll be upfront and recognize that at the start of the conflict there were some soldiers that didn't have the levels of protection that we wanted," Spoehr said. Now, he added, "we can categorically say that whatever you're going to buy isn't as good as what you're going to get" from the military.

In interviews Thursday, Army officials said aggressive marketing by body armor manufacturers was fueling public concerns that troops are not getting the protection they need.
Army Lt. Col. Scott Campbell said the Army has asked Pinnacle to provide 30 sets of the full Dragon Skin armor so it can be independently tested. He said Pinnacle has indicated it won't be able to provide that armor until May, and the company said that is still the plan....

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=1789479

[Trevelyan]

142. I remember reading that a unit had to beg another unit for food, water,

ammunition and weapons and some units got 3 and 4 times what they needed and other units were sharing weapons. It seemed that bushco was and is trying to create a have and have not situation in the military to stir up trouble and they rotate soldiers so that they do not develop solidarity and trust to start fighting against the way that bushco is murdering our troops with no armor, no plan and a host of other ways they are trying to destroy our military along with all of America.

Even AOL and other msm have quoted Generals in Iraq saying that bush is BREAKING the best fighting force in the world. This is deliberate and the games with the armor are mind games as well. see psyops...now being perpetrated on US citizens and esp. our soldiers. MK-ULTRA and the truth about Timothy McVeigh as Manchurian candidate are "helpful" in understanding what is really going on.

[im10ashus]

38. Um, I have a nephew in the 82nd Airborne.

HE and his unit had no armor. AND he did 2 tours of duty. You are not correct in this instance. I am former military and salute your service, but I disagree with you based on my nephew's word. And he would never lie to me.

Oh, welcome to DU! Was it this particular thread that brought you here?

[BrentWill1]

41. I doubt that..

If any member from the 82nd deployed to Iraq within the past two years, they got armor. Perhaps during the invasion that might have been true, however, not now.

[im10ashus]

42. Well, he JUST got back in February.

Are you telling me you are an expert on this subject and he lied to me? Because I can assure you he and his unit did NOT have the armor. I would like to believe it's not true that the wouldn't send our soldiers to combat without the necessary equipment, but I know better.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[im10ashus]

48. Well you are wrong.

when I have permission from my nephew to post his picture I will. But I will not give you bait. Thanks for playing. But you are wrong.

[BrentWill1]

50. Okay, whatever..

Yeah, the 82nd, one of the more elite infantry divisions didn't give their people armor.

[im10ashus]

53. No.

They did not. Not as of February.

[Zhade]

79. Fuck your lies.

Hey, I'm a Congressman - I mean, I claimed it, so it must be true, right?

Go tell Bill O'Rielly. We get bad liars like you every day, we're not stupid enough to actually believe your swill when it's been shown LONG ago not to be true.

[saigon68]

109. adios

Vaya con Dios

[Zhade]

77. I think our new visitor just called you a liar.

I'll return the favor - HE'S a liar.

[Zhade]

76. "No one goes into IRaq without body armor"

That's a blatant, demonstrable LIE.

[BiggJawn]

133. Hey! Y'all didn't save *ME* any pizza!

The guy was the "Real Deal", proud member of the 101st Fightin' Keyboardists...

[Ice4Clark]

17. I guess the army doesn't mind them spending their hard-earned

money on uniforms tho? The units in my area were told yesterday, no new uniforms, none. No money. Doesn't matter if what they are wearing now has holes in it, no new uniforms will be issued. Many have not upgraded to the new ECU and now that the army isn't going to be issuing any, they will have to pay for the new ECU out of thier pockets or face disciplinary actions. I think the deadline for replacement is this April. I heard many of the troops say that if we can't even fund for uniforms, then it's time for W to admit he's made a mistake and pull out now.

They don't get squat in pay now for what sacrifices they make. This is just going to add to the spreading discontent. Maybe the tatoo crowd will fill in the gap...........sarcasim intended.

[CatholicEdHead]

19. And to think Repubs complained about Clinton

"underfunding the military".

[BrentWill1]

20. Soliders get money for ACUs

First, they are ACUs not ECUs. Next, they army gives all enlisted soliders money each year to replace their uniforms. http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourcesContent/0,13964,30699-mil_status_reserve-,00.html . They recive over 500 hundards dollars a year. A pair of ACUs cost around 90 dollars. The army also gives soliders time to change over to the new uniform so they can buy ACUs as their BDUs wear out.

[Ice4Clark]

22. Well, I'm telling you all that in my area THEY ARE NOT

getting new uniforms! We have guard and reserves here who have been activated. There was memo that came down. My coworker's husband is in the reserves and he was told they have to be in the new uniforms by a certain date, and since the army could not issue them, he had to pay out of pocket.

[BrentWill1]

27. You are right

You are right. They are getting money to go and buy new uniforms. Reserve soldiers get an amount for each drill they attand and when they go active, they get the money at the same rate an active duty gets it. This money is meant to cover replacements costs as they replace uniforms, which is why the army gives soliders time to replace uniforms. See link I posted for more details.

[Ice4Clark]

32. I found this on the net

Reservists: The services replace enlisted reserve and National Guard members’ worn-out uniforms with new clothing items rather than paying an allowance.

So, my guys are being told NO replacements.......

here's the link

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292243-896350.php

[BrentWill1]

35. I know

They get the alloment once they go active. This I know for sure. If you check my link, you will see that it says that they get some money for each drill. I am not sure which source is correct. If your source is correct, then the problem needs to be fixed.

[Ice4Clark]

36. Here is another link regarding Reserve and Guard

Clothing/Equipment:

Are Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) personnel authorized a clothing allowance?

AGR officers upon the initial tour are entitled to uniform allowance; enlisted AGR personnel are not because it is ANG policy to provide "in-kind" issue through unit supply.

http://www.ngb.army.mil/faq/

[BrentWill1]

40. If that is the case..

The problem needs to be fixed.

[Ice4Clark]

44. One last post on the subject and then I'm done.....

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/59922.pdf


Page 16, under ALLOWANCES:

During AT, but not during IDT, reservists may be eligible for a housing allowance known as Basic Allowance for Housing II and for a subsistence allowance known as Basic Allowance for Subsistence. Reserve officers are also entitled to a $200 clothing allowance at the beginning of their reserve service to assist them in purchasing necessary uniform items. Furthermore, if they are called to active duty for more than 90 days, they are usually entitled to an additional $100 clothing allowance. Reserve Enlisted personnel are issued all of their uniforms, shoes, boots, and insignias and therefore do not receive any clothing allowance.



Yes, it needs to be fixed. They too are giving their all for our nation and the same rules don't apply to all service members who are engaged in the war on terror. Even some of the death benefits while on active duty are not the same for active vs guard/reserve.

[w4rma]

86. No $#@! Sherlock. Good grief. (nt)

[Karenca]

101. dupe, delete

[Karenca]

it's wrong to

lie ....... you're not 41, you're 25.
and you've never been to iraq, you're not a soldier..,you attend military school here.


YoungTurk

[Karenca]

102. dupe, delete

[Karenca]

103. .

dupe, delete

[JuniperLea]

26. And they charge the soldiers for any they loose

Even if they are in a hospital bed without legs.

[BrentWill1]

28. Any lost during combat

Are written off. I wrote off two myself for my two of my guys that got hurt. I know of one case where the army was being stupid about this, but it got fixed in the end.

[NMDemDist2]

31. welcome to DU Brent, and I wonder if the Regular Army get better

or different supplies than the NG and reserves. IIRC it seems it's those guys who have had issues getting the proper equipment before they deploy.

The other thing I'm reading on soldier blogs is lots of the troops are very unhappy with the heavy and cumbersome new vests they've been issued. Can you address these concerns we have for our guys and gals over there?

[BrentWill1]

39. The vests suck..

for some people but the question the army has to answer is rather these "New and better" vests will still stop a 7.62 round. I think the vests we have currently are fine however. I have walked around in 120 degrees for eight hours in them and I am not dead. As far as the NG and regular army, that has been true in the past. It was kind of like team A and team B and you gave all the cool guy stuff to the Regular Army. However, that being said, that has been changing since everyone deploys now.

[im10ashus]

43. Was it this topic that brought you here to DU?

[BrentWill1]

45. Not really

I lurk alot, but this gave me reason to post because I knew for a fact that your "facts" were false. I

[im10ashus]

46. Prove it.

Prove they are false. I have no reason to believe you at this point. I am sorry, but I can't put any faith in your statements. It's just my choice.

[BrentWill1]

49. No..

You will take the word of someone that has been there or you won't. I cannot "prove" it to you.

[im10ashus]

52. I am taking the word of someone who has been there.

My own blood relation. What would you do? I don't even know you. And you could be lying just because...what the hell ever. I've no reason to believe you. But I have talked to my nephew and 2 of his buddies who have stayed with me while on leave. So don't ask me to take your word. To me your word means nothing.

[Zhade]

80. I'll bet you've never even SEEN a military base.

Fucking chickenhawk lying freeper coward.

[Kailassa]

93. My thoughts exactly.

It's great that guys like you are presenting facts, standing up for the troops and showing up the propaganda-purveyors.

[Ignis]

131. Don't hold back, Zhade.

Tell us how you really feel. :)

I think we need a DU verification program, whereby all of the 'recently returned soldiers' can send a notarized letter to Skinner. Perhaps that would cut down on these 'prove it' threads.

[FogerRox]

90. too many guys have been interviwed in the press. Officers have been

reported in better armor. Flak vests still in use. I guess you missed the stateside press reports about the

BIG Picture

[JuniperLea]

136. I suppose you don't want us to believe our lying eyes and ears

There have been too many interviews, audio, video and in print, that completely debunk every word you have said here. Most all of us have seen much of this with our own eyes and heard it with out own ears.

Go back and tell your buds at Free Republic that they need a lot more than this to sway any opinion here. We aren't drinking the Kool Aid and I dare you to find many here that are that gullible.

If you are a returning soldier, my heart goes out to you... you've clearly been fed a ration of BS and that was wrong to do to you.

[Qanisqineq]

98. over $500 a year for clothing allowance?

gee, when did this start? My husband's been in almost 11 years and does not get $500/year for clothing allowance. He gets $300 every year on the anniversary of when he first enlisted.

As for the new ACU's -- while they are said to be comfortable "like pajamas", I've read and heard many soldiers say they rip very easily and need to be replaced often.

[Solly Mack]

107. Thank you! I read the "over 500 a year" and laughed. I bookmarked

to show my husband later so he could get a good laugh a well.

Over 12 years in and he does not get "over 500 a year" for a clothing allowance.

lololololol

[Qanisqineq]

116. I thought the army was screwing us out of money

when I first read the post about $500. LOL! I wish it was $500 and I wish the only thing he had to buy was new BDU's or ACU's each year. Add in all the other crap and it's a lot of money. I told him he needs his own place just to store all the military junk he has to have. And now we are in a dinky apartment in Korea with no closets. One of these days I'm going to lose my mind at the site of camouflage and build a big bonfire...

[Solly Mack]

118. LOl I was just "debating" with mine yesterday over all his crap

We have very small closets but he uses 3 of them (the other 1 is mine) and the tiny basement storage to store all his stuff - and he's garrison for crying out loud!

We just had to buy new uniforms last week - ACU's - and spent right at 400 on 2 uniforms - rank/various required patches and name tags - hats, the new t-shirts, and the new boots. Command driven, though not army regulated, made the buy unavoidable. We were hoping to wait until regulation required the uniforms, so they'd have to be issued. But noooooooo.... that might benefit the soldier.



And someone wants to tell me we get over 500 a year for uniforms? In my dreams... and theirs too.

[Hissyspit]

23. Good God...

[VegasWolf]

25. All approved armor must say "Made in China". nt

[file83]

110. EX-FUCKING-ACTLY

[tanyev]

51. Concerned about avoiding future lawsuits?

Soldier A survives an attack that kills Soldier B. Soldier A has more expensive body armor paid for by his family. Soldier B had standard issue. Will the devastated family of Soldier B try to sue the Army on the grounds that they did not provide the best body armor available?

[BrentWill1]

54. The law doesn't allow such lawsuits...

so the family can't sue...

[karlrschneider]

55. If you have been a 'lurker' for some time, you probably realize that

someone with a blank 'profile' other than gender who joined DU about 24 hours ago is going to be viewed with a fair amount of suspicion...however, you do seem to have a bit more expertise than the typical keyboard kommando...but you could make your bona fides a lot more believable if you'd care to, by providing a little more information. I find it somewhat remarkable that you're commenting on the legal issues involved here - what is your MOS?

[bemildred]

56. Not too impressive so far.

Demands proof in one post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2198658&mesg_id=2198904

While refusing it in another:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2198658&mesg_id=2198906

And in response to the same poster in both.

[BrentWill1]

58. I didn't refuse proof...

I agreed once it was shown. If I am wrong about reserve pay, and they are supposed to be issued uniforms instead of getting money for uniforms, then they should be issued uniforms.

[im10ashus]

60. Your statement makes no sense, dear sir.

A. You "agreed" to what once it was shown?

B. Uniforms and body armor are two different things.

[BrentWill1]

62. Yes

I may be wrong on rather or not the Army gives reserve guys a uniform allowance. I am not wrong on the body armor issue.

[im10ashus]

66. You are wrong.

They don't give it to everyone. Why else would they ban the use of any private armor? There would be no need to do that if they PROVIDED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Why don't you post your picture and show us your body armor? Not everyone gets the armor. And certainly not my nephew and his unit. That's the truth. Like it or not. Given that you are an expert, I would say the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

[FogerRox]

92. thank you imashus

[im10ashus]

99. You are welcome, dear sir.

Just doing my part. :-)

[MADem]

115. In my branch of service, uniforms were uniforms, and BA is not a uniform

item ....it's "gear issue"--like a tool, or a weapon.

I never got five hundred bucks for unis, either!!!!

[im10ashus]

59. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Apparently I need to "post" my nephew's picture as proof. Yeah, because I want him to be singled out after his picture is posted. There's one thing I know for certain. Well, two.

1. My nephew has been in Iraq for TWO "tours" without body armor. I just got off the phone with my sister who confirmed this.

2. My nephew can't WAIT to get out in two months so he can REALLY say what he has been through and how much Rummy et al. suck major ass.

:-)

[bemildred]

61. Well, I wish your Nephew well, in any case.

I have some relatives in the mix also.

This is the internet, it's ALL talk anyway, people need to deal with that. State your case and move on.
:hug:

[im10ashus]

63. So true.

And my well-wishes to you and yours, dear friend.

:hug:

[Zhade]

81. There are none so blind as LYING FREEPERS.

Sheesh, where are the mods? This guy's calling longterm DUers who we know FOR A FACT have people in Iraq liars, and he's transparent as glass!

[BrentWill1]

89. I am saying they are wrong..

Rather if it is because they are making an honest mistake somehow or because they are lying, I don't know.

[BrentWill1]

57. Because I know the law, at least a little bit of it when it comes to the..

military... I am an 11A.

[karlrschneider]

65. I admit I had to Google the MOS...I was in the USAF from 1963 to

1968 and we didn't use MOS. So apparently you're an Officer. Did you come up thru the EM ranks? (That doesn't happen in the AF...or didn't in those days anyway except for a few anomalies that involved Warrant Officers)

But I think you might be wrong about the legality of such a lawsuit; I don't have citations handy but there have been some Judicial up to and including the USSC, opinions concerning the viability of similar actions.

[im10ashus]

68. We used MOS in my days in the military.

That was from 1986-1990.

[karlrschneider]

72. Might be different now but in the 60s, the USAF did not.

We had AFSC (Air Force Specialty Code).

[oneold1-4u]

94. Here's the fist of it

This guy can't use good english or spell worth a damn and is too dumb to even use spell check!
A freeper for certain, and likely someone being paid at the rate those in India are paid to answer 800 numbers for businesses!

[BrentWill1]

64. I updated my profile for you...

Just for you..

[im10ashus]

69. Which proves nothing.

Anyone can do that. :-)

[karlrschneider]

70. Well, gee, that was really sweet of you!

I'm not being snarky, really...if you're who you say you are, you have my admiration. I'm inclined to believe you so I'll bow out of this discussion and we shall see how it shakes out. (By the way, I use my real name here at DU and on many other internet forums/groups/blogs, etc.) That has gotten me more than a few serious-sounding threats...which is okay - my household is prepared to deal with nutballs and we haven't had to kill any morons...yet. :D

[Maeve]

123. And the mods updated even further---This one is gone, guys!

[derby378]

91. No lawsuits? How conveeeeenient...

There are people who support our troops and their families, and then there's the Bush administration. They are not one and the same, but I think you're starting to learn that by now.

By the way, welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Hekate]

67. I take it Pinnacle Armor is not a Halliburton subsidiary

What, me cynical?

To the scoffer currently contributing to this thread, let me say this:

My niece's high school friend John joined the Army "to help protect the US." His parents gave him their blessing, good patriots that they are themselves. The last his father heard from him was a phone call from Italy saying he was a bit worried that he still didn't have the right ammo for his weapon and he still didn't have appropriate body armor.

You would think that at a BARE MINIMUM this country would supply its military forces with the wherewithal to at least defend themselves in battle.

Then John and his patrol buddies got shot up outside Kirkuk. They are dead. My niece went to his funeral.

There are just too many stories like this to ignore. Google your little heart out.

Hekate

[bemildred]

71. I would guess they are outside the procurement apparatus altogether.

And I would guess that THAT is the real problem. It's all about control.

[BrentWill1]

73. The root cause and why you are all making mistakes in your logic..

I have reread this thread and I believe that I have come to the problem. The problem as I see it is the ignorant think this is a panacea. There is no such thing as armor that can't be defeated. Hell, they even managed to do a couple of Abrams tanks.

The judicious use of the appropriate ballistic protection is a very good thing if the mission dictates it. Attempts to reduce casualties to zero by creating Michelin Men and Bubble Boys isn't.

Reading the thread, I am laughing at the opinions from those who are ignorant on this subject. The question cannot be left to the individual soldier. That very thought is ridiculous. Most people don't know enough about armor to make the decision and they won't educate themselves. Hell, a lot of them don't even know how to put it on right - just look at the pics coming from over there. Same with holsters and other kit. I see pics all the time of pogues wearing leg holsters around the ankles and shoulder rigs around their waists. It is a lot like some people on here discussing COIN and small war.

No one goes into theater without being issued the current standard. Nobody. Compliance is another issue. That is up to the individual commander to enforce.

To me, a good analogy is IT. Look how long it takes for a corporation to move up to a new operating system - why is that?

A lot of that privately purchased armor hasn't been through the testing process yet. DragonSkin hasn't. DOD has requested 30 sets for independent testing. The company says they can't provide it until May - who's causing the delay? And yet they have armor to sell to troops? Just because a company says, "Ours is better!" don't make it so.

One of the defining characteristics of an army is uniformity. I am neither surprised by the newest order nor am I opposed to it. The military ain't a democracy.

[im10ashus]

75. "No one goes into theater without being issued the current standard."

Although you have made good points, you fail to convince me otherwise. Mainly because I know what I am told by soldiers whom I personally know. But if "No one goes into theater without being issued the current standard," why did so many families have to shell out the money for body armor for their loved ones. It's not unusual for military personnel to buy their own gear. Hell, I preferred paying for my own boots because the standard issue weren't as nice as the ones I liked and felt more comfortable in. But if there are soldiers doing without, isn't that an egregious mistake in the planning process which lead to our going into Iraq based on fabricated intelligence?

[BrentWill1]

78. Because..

They are shelling out money for armor and other stuff that has not been tested by the army and the army isn't sure about how well it will work.

[im10ashus]

84. Well, with all due respect, that's your version of the story.

And you are entitled to it. I have to believe my nephew and his friends that I KNOW have been there without the armor. I am sure you have your experience you are basing this on, but, we have differing views on this matter.

Peace!

[PegDAC]

140. Yeah, I guess

it hasn't been truly tested if the generals are the only ones wearing it. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011606S.shtml After all, they rarely venture beyond the safety of the Green Zone.

Where's my bucket? :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Zhade]

82. You LIED. We know for a proven fucking FACT that soldiers...

...aren't being equipped.

And you're calling OTHERS liars.

We see right the fuck through you.

[BrentWill1]

83. You know for a fact?

Been over in country during the last year?

[im10ashus]

85. My nephew has. Twice. eom

[Hekate]

95. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

"Logic" doesn't have to be fact-based.

Hekate

[FogerRox]

97. chill, please

I have reread this thread and I believe that I have come to the problem. The problem as I see it is the ignorant

wrong move calling my peeps ignant, time for me to ask for you to say
"SORRY"

think this is a panacea. There is no such thing as armor that can't be defeated. Hell, they even managed to do a couple of Abrams tanks."

Couple of what? Dozen, scores, hundreds? Those newer RPGs are crippleing M-1s, left and right.

The judicious use of the appropriate ballistic protection . . . . .. . .

. . . .No one goes into theater without being issued the current standard. Nobody. Compliance is another issue. That is up to the individual commander to enforce.

Dude, while you were over there...... we were reading newspaper reports and hearing interviews of Marines and troops on the radio, saying the EXACT opposite of what you are saying. Officers too/ SOoooo respectfully, it might be you are full of shit..

To me, a good analogy is IT. Look how long it takes for a corporation to move up to a new operating system - why is that?

Microsoft Windows reference? Who the fuck trusts MS? Is that how troops view the vendors that supply their equipment?

A lot of that privately purchased armor hasn't been through the testing process yet. DragonSkin hasn't. DOD has requested 30 sets for independent testing. The company says they can't provide it until May

- Again, thats the opposite of what we have heard stateside. I respectfully suggest that you take your playbook and fold it 5 times and put it where the moon doesnt shine.

.

One of the defining characteristics of an army is uniformity.

Uniformity? Rumsfeld said you go to war with what you have. I recall a time when
M-1 tanks could be found with the (IIRC)105mm & the 120mm smoothbore. Of course you know the answer to why that was, and it doesnt need to even be said, does it?. In fact I bet there were M-60s serving at the same time as M-1s.

We cant trust what you say, and we dont have verification. SO maybe you could shut it down and chill.

[AuntiBush]

74. Wasting Money...

they got a ton of nerve.

[Rex]

87. Gotta all look like a bunch of fucking twinkes!

The Army only accept people who look like twinkes and not ding dongs when in full battle rattle. Ding dongs stand out in a crowd and make formations look untidy. Battalion commanders hate untidy formations. Can't have a Congress Critter showing up with everyone looking like a bunch of ding dongs!

[oneold1-4u]

96. It would be pleasing -

to know that all combat personal wore the same type of armor that the president wears most of the time spent out of doors, even in AF1 in case he should ever have to bail out in a chute or pod!

[Rex]

100. Actually lets see him put on a flak vest, ranger body armor,

some nasty BDUs, TH-50, boots and kevlar. I bet he couldn't even walk straight in full battle rattle.

[Big_Mike]

104. I don't know what is worn now.

I retired 10 years ago. But I spent most of my career in Light units. What a misnomer. You carry a 80 pound pack and 30 pounds of equipment and weapon, and it's Light??? Yeah, I'm just doing a normal crunchy bitch.

What I do know is that every ounce counts. If you need to move to save your life, every non-essential ounce is literally life threatening. What I have heard from friends still active is that they prefer the non-issue stuff due to weight considerations. Maybe it won't fully stop everything you'd like, but if it's light enough to let you haul ass to cover before the enemy can get a good bead on you (if the SOB even bothers to aim), then it is good enough. Now, if I was simply doing exterior guard at a fixed point, give me the issue stuff with the goddamn heavy plate. But if I'm patrolling or clearing buildings, I want the best trade off between weight and protection. This would particularly be true for the guys in Afghanistan, due to just about all operations being done on foot, AFAIK. Not a great road network available there.

It all comes down to the old military acronym METT-T: Mission, Equipment, Troops, Terrain, and Time Available. You decide your equipment load based upon evaluation of those factors. If you anticipate heavy engagement, maybe you cut down on clean socks and load heavy on ammo and grenades. If the mission is static and the weather is crap, then load up on the snivel gear. But if you are combat patrolling on foot in that lousy weather, and you know you'll have to haul ass, you keep it to the bare minimums, 'cause it'll get heavier as it gets soaked.

Is it confusing? Hell yes. Are the orders passed down dumber than dog shit? Quite often, yes. But I would be astounded and amazed that if a unit doesn't have the current issue stuff, any leader would prohibit wearing of something to help. There are many times where orders are obeyed more in the breach than in fact.

I remember the two beer limit. First and last. What happened in the middle is between me and my God.

[MADem]

117. Valid issues, all of them

The Dragon Skin is favored because it's customizable--you can get a lot of protection, or a little, depending on your...attitude. Or your level of exposure to threat on a day-to-day basis. Not everyone is doing the ugly jobs, there's always a few lucky bastards in the rear with the gear.

It's also said to be cooler, which is a consideration in the hot weather.

[longship]

105. A real morale boosting decision

nt

[Liberty Belle]

106. Dems, here's your chance to show we support the troops!

Our Dem leaders should be speaking out against this loud and clear, and urging every Democrat in America to pressure their Congressional members to change the law and allow private body armor. Also raise a ruckus over the fact that the GOP-led Congress has done such a poor job of "caring for our troops" that many soldiers feel compelled to buy their own armor -- something that should NEVER be necessary in the first place!

[grasswire]

108. something very sinister just occurred to me

Is it possible that they don't want GIs to survive their wounds because of the extra costs to the budget? Rehab and medical care and all those extra benefits that wounded GIs get?

Could they be so low?

[Higans]

150. the administration would rather the troops die for the reasons you state.

they have never cared about the troops. it's much cheaper to have them killed.

You ask "could they me that low?"

truth is they are lower. to the point of planing the terrorist acts and road side bombs. creating the chaos because the don't want the war to end.

[file83]

113. May I call it? . . . BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!

Is the Pentagon trying to tell us that the soldiers on the ground in Baghdad can't figure out what kinds of body armor work for them?

I'm pretty sure the word will get around FAST when Private Ryan DIES because his ACME Body Armor fails to stop a bullet. That company probably won't be getting many more orders from the soldiers in the field.

But hey, what do I know about free market capitalism?

[Ice4Clark]

119. This discussion was on PBS and here's the link to the video

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june06/armor_1-11.html

[Ice4Clark]

120. Wes Clark has spoken out on this before.....

Demand body armor for our troops in Iraq!

Please join me by co-signing our letter to Senators Warner and Levin today!

The Bush Administration has not provided our troops with the body armor they need to protect themselves.

It's been three years, and now hundreds of thousands of brave American service men and women have risked their lives in Iraq - with many paying the ultimate price.

This is unconscionable. This is incompetent. This is neglecting our soldiers' needs in war. It is time for Congress to act.

Co-sign my letter to Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner (R-VA) and Ranking Member Carl Levin (D-MI), urging a full investigation into the welfare and safety of our troops in Iraq!

An internal government report recently obtained by the New York Times and published in an article this past weekend confirms that “80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor.”

The Times report continued, noting that “such armor has been available since 2003,” but the Pentagon declined to supply it to the troops despite “calls from the field for additional protection.”

More than 1700 American troops have died during combat. And according to the Times analysis, as many as 300 deaths could have been prevented if our soldiers were equipped with the right kind of body armor - armor that costs as little as $260 per set.

We must demand that this Administration pay the costs to ensure our troops get what they need to be effective and secure in their conduct of the mission. This is not about dollars and cents, but about our values as a nation.

Call on Congress to investigate the Bush Administration's appalling disregard for the welfare and safety of American troops on the ground in Iraq - co-sign my letter to Senators Warner and Levin now!

President Bush continues to attack critics of the war effort as “unpatriotic” - but I refuse to stay silent. The war in Iraq was a strategic blunder from the very beginning. And the Administration's handling of the war has only gone downhill from there.

This study is just the latest example of the Bush Administration's appalling disregard for the welfare and safety of our troops. President Bush's rhetoric doesn't match the actions of his Administration, and unnecessary combat fatalities are the result.

Clearly, Congressional investigation is warranted. When were the needs for additional protection first expressed? Who knew what and when, and why weren't necessary steps taken?

The American people deserve no less than full accountability and assurances that going forward our troops will not face unnecessary risks or danger caused by lack of resources, oversight, or commitment from Washington.

Join me in calling on Congress to investigate this critical matter. Our brave men and women in uniform deserve so much better from this Administration, and that's why we must speak out.


Sincerely,

Wes Clark


P.S. I'll be sending our letter to Senators Warner and Levin next Wednesday - please join me by co-signing our letter today!




http://ga4.org/campaign/bodyarmor

[symbolman]

122. Sorry no outside food or drink allowed in theater

The movie is free, but they make all their money on the 17 cents worth of sugar water and 10 cents worth of popcorn.

I was a purchasing agent in the USAF during Vietnam, I took good care of our boys, buying the implements of destruction with all the money in the world at my disposal, TAX DOLLARS, but the privatization of the military is TREASON.

Anyone know if the "War Profiteering Law" from WW2 is still on the books? I know this admin is very happy to dust off ancient law to get their way, it's time that WE dusted off some ancient law and sent everyone involved in B $ R, or Halliburton, and that includes CHENEY TO JAIL.

[Ian David]

124. About those yellow "Support our Troops" ribbons...

I just figured out why they're magnetic instead of adhesive.

It's so Republicans can can remove them from their cars in shame when they pull crap like this.

[Ian David]

125. According to the Army, our troops don't WANT armor anyway...

Many Troops Don't Want Extra Body Armor
Atlanta Journal-Constitution | February 06, 2006
The extra body armor the Pentagon is issuing Soldiers and Marines in Iraq will not be a welcome addition for everyone.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,87152,00.ht...



Republicans tell our troops to eat shit and die:

Whistleblowers' stomach-curdling story:
Halliburton serves contaminated water to troops
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/contamination.html


See related thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=797048&mesg_id=797601

[exlrrp]

127. I wouldn't either

I was a grunt in the 101st the last time Henry Kissinger wanted to conquer the world (Vietnam)
I was also a lrrp (now Airborne Rangers)
Our body armor at that time (flak jackets) were so dismally insignificnt, we threw them away. Never wore them
Fighting a war in high heat is hard enough without a lot of extra body armor to drag around. Maybe this war is different but I can't imagine trying to fight the Vietnam War with body armor--we had troops falling out from heat stroke.
War is war, there's going to be death and dismemberment and nobody know it better than a grunt. But you have to balance getting the job done with personal safety. Ultimately you have to risk your life--no war was ever won from a bunker (just ask Hitler)
if I was a grunt nowadays I probably wouldn't want BA either.

[Ian David]

139. I think the armor has drastically improved since then

And our current troops aren't the namby-pamby mama's boys that went to 'Nam and whined about a little heat.

Sorry, I was kidding about that last part.

Anyway, Iraq is also a dry heat.

And it's cold at night.

And much of our operations are conducted at night.

Besides, they can always cool off with a refreshing glass of Halliburton Shit Water.

[oneinok]

128. hey folks

Get back on subject. The troops can't protect themselves, no matter what. I think the oil companies should buy the body armor. After all the troops are there to protect the American oil interests.

[rocktivity]

129. Even if it's true that that don't want the body armor

that doesn't relieve the miltiary of their obligation to supply it.

And considering how well soliders are paid, I seriously doubt they're buying their own armor because they have nothing better to do. THEY'RE BUYING IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OF THEIR OWN!!!

:eyes:
rocknation

[Quantess]

130. The military doesn't want to look bad

My guess: the real reason for this ban, is that the military doesn't want to look bad. They don't want potential embarrassment from having their own equipment compared to non-standard body armor.
They would like the whole issue to go away, because they are ashamed. Non-standard gear is a potential threat for the military's image.

[jwirr]

134. 2 Reasons: money & shame.

The pentagon is upset for 2 reasons only. First is that they are being exposed as negligent in providing for our troops themselves. A fact that is glaring with every story about families buying their own armor. Secondly they are upset because one of their buddy corporations do not get the no-bid contract.

If they are worried about quality then let them tell the public just exactly what is need and where it can be bought.

[xdeathstarx]

135. I agree with BrentWill

Soldiers do not come into theater without Body Armor.

You DO NOT go outside the wire without Body Armor. Period.

As far as soldiers buying their own, I know of some that wanted to buy their own because of comfort issues and looking more "high speed". But the fact is, no matter how well the armor, NOTHING is going to stop a direct hit by what we encounter here (RPG'S, IED's, etc). I have personally seen the IBA we are issued work againt multiple 7.62 rounds. I had a VBIED (carbomb) blow 12 feet in front of me...I left with minor injuries to unprotected areas (my face, arms).

I wont say people who say that they were not issued armor are liars. But I find it VERY unlikely. Just because I have been in Iraq for 11 months, and have NEVER seen or heard of anyone not being issued the correct armor. Maybe it's true, and if it is, it's a unit supply fault. They are directly to blame.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

ps, if you really wanna doubt my credibility, please pm or email me. I ZERO politcal agenda. I report the facts, period.

[Kailassa]

147. You arrived rather late for a "2nd liar to support the 1st" person.

Did you get lost on the way here?

[quaoar]

137. Time for Rumsfeld to go

He should be in prison. He's a pathetic joke and a disgrace.

[Shine]

138. Outrageous and further, it makes absolutely NO SENSE.

:wtf: difference does it make if a soldier wants to wear additional armor that could SAVE his/her life, that was bought on their own dime?

One would think the Army would support and be appreciative of those potentially life-saving measures. :eyes:

Not THIS Army, apparently.

[Sirveri]

141. It's not suppossed to make sense.

It never makes sense. All branches want uniformity. I don't know why but they do. As for this 'regulation', it's not going to be followed, because the people who are there don't care. It's about unit cohesion, they'll be given the armor (maybe, I dunno I'm not there) and told not to wear it, and then there will be those that say, hey maybe they're right, and those that say, screw them, they don't know jack, and then they'll don their lighter stuff that possibly isn't as resistant. Go out, do their job, hopefully no one gets killed, then come back and kick it with your rackmates playing video game until it's time to go out again. You're not going to rat out people who are wearing whatever when it makes them more comfortable unless you're a newb. Rinse and repeat until you finally get to come home. Then again, I dunno much about the army since I'm just a squid. I'm pretty sure the guys in the field will just ignore this reg and do what they're going to do that works and nobody will really notice this reg after today.

[Shine]

146. Greetings to you, Sirveri and thanks for your post!

Sounds like you know what you're talking about. :thumbsup:

:hi: from the Santa Cruz mountains in CA!

[Seabiscuit]

143. Are they trying to kill off all our soldiers too? Friggin' bastids. n/t

[Selteri]

144. Why do these people hate our troops?

How can they be for a military that doesn't work to protect it's greatest asset, it's people, but cares more about keeping up appearances?

Why is our military being used for petty maneuvering like an old school Empire, being used like a club rather than a scalpel and surgeon's tool that is well maintained and cared for to be the best it can be.

[Voltaire99]

148. Bring the troops home.

And you won't have to worry about armor.

While you're at it, stop wasting our nation's treasure on this bloated imperial military.