Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bulldogg If this was really about protecting the troops rather than protecting their image they (the Pentagon) would generate and circulate a list of armour that meets or exceeds MILSPECS. |
BY THE WAY ... I couldn't agree more with your comments about the 'Drugstore Cowboys' that came up with the prohibition against the wearing of civilian body armor ... I have worn
MOST of the various body armors that the military offers ... the armor that is 'good' weighs a ton and tires you out very quickly ... I have also worn civilian body armor (and) it has any military armor beat six ways to Sunday. A lot of what the military calls body armor is nothing more than modified flak jackets ... not really meant to stop bullets ... designed to stop small pieces of flak.
Civilian armor is made out of stronger but lighter material and doesn't tire you out as fast or restrict your movements like the military armor does.
Some of the 'Business Suit' civilian body armors have 'side panels' and lightweight chest and back 'plates' that will stop all but the 'very largest' caliber rounds.
Another fact these turkeys would like you to forget is the fact that
MOST National Guard units are not normally issued body armor ... that was what caused almost
ALL of the complaints about our troops
NOT having body armor ... these units were sent to Iraq without armor on their bodies or their vehicles ... this was another example of the thought that went into the invasion of Iraq. (The Drugstore Cowboys must have been hung over when this plan was hatched).
The sad fact is that those that make these decisions (more than likely), have
NO family members on the ground in Iraq ... if they did the decisions would
DEFINITELY be to allow civilian body armor (or) they would for d*mn sure supply a body armor that protected the troops, that wouldn't tire them out ... and ... would be easy to move in ... in a nutshell, civilian body armor (best grade).