tomtom22 said:I think it's a case of CYA. The reason for the directive that is.
zhjsg said:well. why??
it didnt give a good reason to do it
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.bulldogg said: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.
Chief Bones said:My commentary was from personal knowledge and experience ... what I tried to say was ... IF ... offering the troops the BEST in personal protection is near the top of the list for those responsible for obtaining the armor, then the 'best' of the lightweight civilian 'business suit' armor is the best way to go. These modern lightweight armors beat anything that the military is using to day (the best the military has to day is so heavy that in a very short time you are too pooped to participate in any kind of an operation without first taking a breather. The ONLY problem with these armors is they don't have the 'MILSPEC' grading that the military/industrial complex is so fond of attaching to something so they can double the purchase price.
As far as I am concerned, someone in the military dropped the ball and are trying to cover their collective (_|_)es.
Chief Bones said: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.
The "Interceptor" is the best body armor manufactured in the world today, and represents a remarkable improvement over the protective vests worn by our troops in the first Gulf War, and Somalia in 1993. Those vests could protect against shrapnel, but a rifle bullet would cut right through them.
Those vests weighed 24 lbs each. The interceptor ensemble — which can stop an AK-47 bullet fired from just 10 feet away — weighs just 16 lbs. But the best isn't perfect. There are some special types of ammunition that can penetrate the boronic carbide plates. Last year Army leaders became aware of improvements that could be made to the SAPI plates that would protect against most (though not all) of these special types of ammunition.
Marinerhodes said:Would you please clarify that statement. What post were you talking about and what did you mean? Also, have you read the directive? Not to mention the fact that it is the military. They don't have to give a reason to their troops to do something.
zhjsg said:the reasons the army provide is not convincing.
and considering your last words, i think i should keep silence.
I wore a 'business suit' a little less than a year ago ... I worked security at a 'power plant' (it was required for alerts). I AM NOT completely against some of the reasons the Army gave (I realize that the military MUST have standardization to stop confusion of SOP on equipment) ... the point I was trying to make was that the Army COULD have supplied their troops with BETTER armor by using some of the new light weight civilian armor ... the price differential is quite inline with the present armor, which is Army standard, and is reputed to be all around better than armor which is supplied by the Army.Marinerhodes said:The pros and cons of various armors is not what is in question. What is in question is why the troops can not wear their own armor. That has been answered in a few different ways and with many reasons. I feel most, if not all, are good reasons.
I see you stating opinions of what you remember. I see you retired in 1992. My question is when did you wear the new body armor last? This new armor wasn't around back in 1992. You may be remembering something that is totally different then than now.
Chief Bones said:I wore a 'business suit' a little less than a year ago ... I worked security at a 'power plant' (it was required for alerts). I AM NOT completely against some of the reasons the Army gave (I realize that the military MUST have standardization to stop confusion of SOP on equipment) ... the point I was trying to make was that the Army COULD have supplied their troops with BETTER armor by using some of the new light weight civilian armor ... the price differential is quite inline with the present armor, which is Army standard, and is reputed to be all around better than armor which is supplied by the Army.
Chief Bones said:I wore a 'business suit' a little less than a year ago ... I worked security at a 'power plant' (it was required for alerts). I AM NOT completely against some of the reasons the Army gave (I realize that the military MUST have standardization to stop confusion of SOP on equipment) ... the point I was trying to make was that the Army COULD have supplied their troops with BETTER armor by using some of the new light weight civilian armor ... the price differential is quite inline with the present armor, which is Army standard, and is reputed to be all around better than armor which is supplied by the Army.
Dragon Skin armor meets or exceeds all NIJ standards and even exceeds alot of the mil spec standards for protection
http://www.abfnet.com/modules.php?name=News&file=showarticle&threadid=23621
I have to agree ... I have been away from military armor for awhile ... it appears that the armor that is now carried MAY be a little bit different than what I was familiar with.Marinerhodes said:The question I have with that type of armor is this:
What kind of protection can it offer?
The armor worn by our guys have throat and groin protection as well as 90%+ torso coverage (when worn and fitted properly).
I envision the armor you talk about as that worn by police officers and other civilian authorities: Has about 80-85% torso coverage. Covers the vitals (heart, lungs, stomach) and that is about all.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.