I agree with every thing Big Z said but would like to add that the strain can be augmented by conditioning and using the mobility provided by vehicles. What I think is really important is the ability of individual commanders to be able to tailor there soldiers kit for there specific mission.

There is a new type of body armor that is being researched. Similar to the current OTV but is supposed to be considerably more versatile to differing body types as well as sex. It also has differently shaped and sized plates and has what I can only describe as "runners" that hold it out from the body a bit to help circulate air. These "runners" also helps keep people from getting injured or killed by backface deformation which is one of the common injuries when hit by a round. Among other things it is also supposed to help distribute the weight of the gear as the current OTV was never meant to carry the weight that today's servicemembers carry into combat. The article was in the Marine Times not long ago. I believe the Army is leading the project but I am not certain. I imagine the fielding of the gear will be much faster than has been seen in the past.

Unfortunately I don't have the paper with me or I would type in excerpts from it with the specs.

P.S. Sleepyscout, love your signature, but you know that without Supply there ain't no one leading the way anywhere

I have tried on body armor and I am under the impression that going out in the heat with that thing on must a real *****. It is not uncommon for the heat to rise above 100 degrees in Iraq and being exposed to that kind of toture for so long could cause a heat stroke. But then again without it you have no protection against enemy rounds. So I guess the troops have a double edged sword aimed at them.

From what I know about body armor I will try to get myself a Level III to wear when I do join up and keep water to drink/pour on my head when I get hot.

They will give you body armor to wear, and it is against regs to wear anything but the issue body armor (US Army). Also, Lvl III will not stop an AK round, which is why they give you Lvl IV SAPI plates.

*edited to add: You will learn to drink so much water, more than you thought a human could drink. It will keep you alive, however.

*edited to add: You will learn to drink so much water, more than you thought a human could drink. It will keep you alive, however.

Very true. I hate drinking large amounts of water, but find I have to constantly remind myself to drink.

This issue was tackled indirectly in an article in the latest Australian Army Journal. It was titled "Light Infantry?". The point being made is that over 3000 years we have not addressed weight being carried, and when more is added other items are not taken away to compensate for it. The main criticism is off the logistical supply lines that mean a digger needs to carry 3 to 5 days rations and water, but it also attacked the body armour issue and water carriage.

It is a vicious circle. Wear more body armour - be slower, become hotter, fatigue more, but be protected and possibly take more stupid risks because of a subliminal level thought of safety.
And carrying more water. If you make a soldier carry 10L more water, water consumption will increase to cope with the load, therefore requiring more water to be carried. How far does it go.

Originally Posted by Maytime

They will give you body armor to wear, and it is against regs to wear anything but the issue body armor (US Army).

Then where does all this stuff about troops having to buy their own body armor come from? I read on another website there is a Level V for body armor (most only go up to Level IV). Does such a level exist?

Then where does all this stuff about troops having to buy their own body armor come from? I read on another website there is a Level V for body armor (most only go up to Level IV). Does such a level exist?

They didn't *have* to buy their own, they (or their families) chose to. When rumors circulated that Soldiers and Marines were being shot and/or killed when they were wearing third-party armor, people immediately pointed the finger at the govt. The biggest controversy was with the armor called Dragon Skin. It claimed to be able to stop multiple AK rounds, where in fact the govt had not yet fully tested and signed off on it for two reasons: 1) the NIJ's idea of stoppage was different than the manufacturer's, and 2) the armor system was damn heavy.

The Army told everyone that if you are injured or killed while wearing Dragon Skin, you get no $$, and neither does your next of kin. So, everyone was at first told that you could exchange your third party armor in for some $$, but it becomes US govt property. Later on, the Army mandated that everyone will wear the issue body armor, or face some UCMJ goodness.


I don't mind the IBA personally, but it needs to be fitted properly or else it sucks to wear.


*edit: I know nothing of level V, so maybe 556 could fill us in.

Drinking that much water is fine, but if you are on foot you have to carry every thing you need with you. It would appear that many people that have done patrols on here have only done short patrols and mainly with vehicles. Try doing a three day patrol on foot out in the desert and see how long you would last carrying every you would need for those three days on your back.

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Drinking that much water is fine, but if you are on foot you have to carry every thing you need with you. It would appear that many people that have done patrols on here have only done short patrols and mainly with vehicles. Try doing a three day patrol on foot out in the desert and see how long you would last carrying every you would need for those three days on your back.

It seems to me that the vehicle based infantry patrol is very much an American thing. Here in Australia we still step it out wherever we go. All our infantry battalions are light infantry except for 1 mechanised and 1 motorised battalion. I get the impression the Brits still hold the ability to patrol long distances with heavy loads on their backs as a good virtue as do we. Maybe it's just a Commonwealth thing.

no no the light infantry in America still train to do long patrols. However when deployed to Iraq they usably use humves, because they give the patrol more fire power and better mobility. Not to say they are not walking beside the humves for miles on end but the humve is there none the less. Remember also that the majority of the American army is mechanized so we train to fight with vehicles. In Afghanistan were we use mostly light troops, patrols go for weeks at a time getting resuplyed every couple days by air. But wear less body armor then we did in iraq. I am a scout in a brigade recon troop so my experiences are some what biased; scout units in the army are the only ones with un-armored gun truck humves for better mobility. While I do foot patrols my vehicles are usually hidden close by. When you say long distance patrol I think some where around 500 miles and or and up too or beyond 30days. I am very familiar with the western deserts of Iraq.
Remember leaders have to be flexible with there soldiers combat loads and the more support tools the leader has the more emphases on body armor and force protection he can place. If i was in downtown bagdad hell yea i am wearing every ounce of kevaler but when I am walking 10k.....

As for the lack of body armor or all armor in general. It was blown out of proportion by the media. I deployed in august of 2003 and my entire brigade fielded IBA with plates. yes before that we had troops who didn’t have IBA’s shortages happen but all the infantry and scouts had IBA because there the one’s who needed them. As soon as the military could get them the people who hardly ever left the FOB got there armor too. So here we are in 2006 still talking about a issue solved by august of 2003.