US Army bans use of privately bought armor
Marinerhodes
Active member
tomtom22 said:
In part. Also I think they may be trying to cover the 4th points of the men and women that may be killed or disabled. SGLI and benefits may not apply if they were not wearing appropriate armor or wearing the appropriate armor correctly.
Just bought a copy of the Marine Times. It talked about the armor and some of the same reasons given here were in the article. One of the reasons given were that the extra SAPI plates weigh in at 10lbs total. That is 10 more lbs to carry around for several hours at a time while on patrol. Many units doing two patrols a day. This on top of an already 50-70lb loadout.
Marinerhodes
Active member
zhjsg 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.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Prohibition on civilian body armor bogus ...
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).
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:
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).
Last edited:
PJ24
Active member
What I am wondering here, is why you believe these individuals have the knowledge to buy the proper armor. I don't think you fully understand the problems this is causing. We have guys that are wearing their SAPI plates as standalone, and you think they have the knowledge to get a) the proper armor and b) wear it properly? One of the defining characteristics of an army is uniformity. Everybody doesn't get to wear whatever they want or shoot the gun they want. And not everyone is willing to educate themselves enough to choose their own kit, and even worse when they have family members do it for them.
I will also bring up another point, familiarity with the systems. EVERYONE needs to be familiar with the system you're wearing. SOPs have to be made, I need to know what's on your body, where it's at, and how to get it off. There have already been cases of civilian body armor failing (due to improper wear/defective armor/wrong armor) and medics being unable to remove it quickly enough to address the wounds. In two cases that I am aware of, medics had to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to remove the armor and were shot in the process. I have experienced this myself, but fortunately, my guy survived despite his wounds. He's now living at Walter Reed trying to recover.
Some civilian armor is better than what is currently being issued, much of it is not. There are more "wrong" choices out there than "right" ones. It is easy to make a blanket statement about civilian armor being better, a lot harder to actually name brands and types and give definitive proof that it is.
It sounds well and good to just say "let them choose whatever they want!" But without direction and testing this is not realistic or practical, and is more dangerous than requiring them to wear the entire IBA.
By making this decision, they have essentially taken on the responsibility and moral obligation to put more into armor R&D and come up with a complete solution. But no matter what improvements are made, one thing will always be true; not everyone is going to be happy.
There's a saying I am sure all of you mil guys have heard; "big boy rules."
I advocate letting guys decide how much of the IBA fashion kit they wish to wear based on the operations being conducted, but I don't advocate letting every Joe Snuffy out there buy whatever armor he thinks is the best.
Whatever the reason for this decision, CYA or not, it is a smart one, and hopefully one that will require them to now get off of their rumps and start doing the leg work to find better, lighter and more effective solutions. But no matter how much research, or how good armor gets, people WILL continue to die in war. This is a cold hard fact of armed conflict.
I will also bring up another point, familiarity with the systems. EVERYONE needs to be familiar with the system you're wearing. SOPs have to be made, I need to know what's on your body, where it's at, and how to get it off. There have already been cases of civilian body armor failing (due to improper wear/defective armor/wrong armor) and medics being unable to remove it quickly enough to address the wounds. In two cases that I am aware of, medics had to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to remove the armor and were shot in the process. I have experienced this myself, but fortunately, my guy survived despite his wounds. He's now living at Walter Reed trying to recover.
Some civilian armor is better than what is currently being issued, much of it is not. There are more "wrong" choices out there than "right" ones. It is easy to make a blanket statement about civilian armor being better, a lot harder to actually name brands and types and give definitive proof that it is.
It sounds well and good to just say "let them choose whatever they want!" But without direction and testing this is not realistic or practical, and is more dangerous than requiring them to wear the entire IBA.
By making this decision, they have essentially taken on the responsibility and moral obligation to put more into armor R&D and come up with a complete solution. But no matter what improvements are made, one thing will always be true; not everyone is going to be happy.
There's a saying I am sure all of you mil guys have heard; "big boy rules."
I advocate letting guys decide how much of the IBA fashion kit they wish to wear based on the operations being conducted, but I don't advocate letting every Joe Snuffy out there buy whatever armor he thinks is the best.
Whatever the reason for this decision, CYA or not, it is a smart one, and hopefully one that will require them to now get off of their rumps and start doing the leg work to find better, lighter and more effective solutions. But no matter how much research, or how good armor gets, people WILL continue to die in war. This is a cold hard fact of armed conflict.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
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.
As far as I am concerned, someone in the military dropped the ball and are trying to cover their collective (_|_)es.
Marinerhodes
Active member
Chief Bones said:
Is it reasonable to believe that they only partially meet MILSPEC and that is why the labels are not put on them?
I agree with PJ24 in this. Uniformity is a good point he made as well.
Chief Bones said:
The FLAK jacket is intended to stop small pieces of flak yes. Used in conjunction with SAPI plates it will also stop small arms fire. Alot of the "Business Suit" body armor does not cover as broad an area as the military armor either. Otherwise you would have the same restrictions as you do with the current body armor. And yes, I too speak from experience having worn the "Business Suit" versions and the military versions. Of course there are many styles/cuts as well.
Before you naysay this, read the entire article.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0805/jkelly082505.php3
If you had read the article I have read in the newest Marine Times you would not even have said anything about the side panels. Unless it is 1/4" thick and weighs a few ounces and can stop a 5.56 - 9mm - 7.62 round at near pointblank range then I don't see how it is any better than what we have in use now.
What body armor system would you recommend for use in the various AOs vs what the US Military currently employs? I would like to see specs on what is currently used vs what you would have put in use.
Keep in mind all aspects of logistics as well.
- Field testing various items to figure which is the best in a field environment. (We all know that what may look good on paper won't always hold up in the field, This can take several weeks at least for the most basic field test(s).)
- Contracting (Which from personal experience on a topic as sensitive as this one can take 3+ months)
- Designating which unit has what priorities
- Ordering the gear and hoping there is no SNAFU in the system. If it is forcefed then that is a whole other headache.
- Receiving and distributing to troops in theater
- Receving and distribution to troops in the rear
- Stocking for replacements in theater
- Stocking for issue in theater
- Stocking for replacements in the rear.
- Stocking for issue in the rear
- Stocking any SL-3 (replacement) parts (any buckles straps or other items that may make the piece of gear unserviceable or unusable)
- Collection of the old gear
- Disposition of the old gear
- Simplicity and ease of use
- Keeping the item(s) stocked for replacements,
- Training in it's use
So again I pose the question: What body armor system would you recommend for use in the various AOs vs what the US Military currently employs?
On the other side of the coin here is an article written in the Marine Times in May of 2005: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-832873.php
And Another: http://www.defensereview.com/article827.html
Last edited:
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
I am NOT at present conversant about all of the available types and models of body armor ... what I AM aware of, is the fact that the latest version of body armor that is on the inventory for ground troops operating in an urban setting is extremely heavy and tires out the troopers very quickly ... heaven help them IF they have to maneuver through doors and windows in a expeditious manner ... the size and weight restricts flexibility and this works against the trooper.
The civilian models of body armor are more than adequate to handle almost all hi-velocity rounds for most calibers of weapons and were lighter and allowed more flexibility than the military counterpart. MILSPEC does NOT endow a piece of equipment with some kind of super power. From what I could see, the civilian armor was up to any standard that the military would require of a piece of equipment. The usage of new composite material is as good (or better) than the old style armor plates that were used in so much of our old body armor, and allows for the lightweight and flexible business suits of today.
YES ... I know you are going to say there are special types of ammunition that will punch through civilian armor ... that's true for ALL armor - civilian and military alike. There will always be someone out there inventing a round type that will foil ANY armor you can come up with that a human can possibly wear.
*Keep in mind, I am NOT talking about some of the 'rip off' copies of reputable manufacturers of body armor ... there are cheap pieces of junk being sold as 'superior' merchandise.*
Bottom line - there are reputable civilian manufacturers that are offering a line of body armor that is superior to the standard armor which is the mainstay of the present military forces, that would give our troopers who are forced to fight in an urban setting better protection.
THIS I DO KNOW...
The civilian models of body armor are more than adequate to handle almost all hi-velocity rounds for most calibers of weapons and were lighter and allowed more flexibility than the military counterpart. MILSPEC does NOT endow a piece of equipment with some kind of super power. From what I could see, the civilian armor was up to any standard that the military would require of a piece of equipment. The usage of new composite material is as good (or better) than the old style armor plates that were used in so much of our old body armor, and allows for the lightweight and flexible business suits of today.
YES ... I know you are going to say there are special types of ammunition that will punch through civilian armor ... that's true for ALL armor - civilian and military alike. There will always be someone out there inventing a round type that will foil ANY armor you can come up with that a human can possibly wear.
*Keep in mind, I am NOT talking about some of the 'rip off' copies of reputable manufacturers of body armor ... there are cheap pieces of junk being sold as 'superior' merchandise.*
Bottom line - there are reputable civilian manufacturers that are offering a line of body armor that is superior to the standard armor which is the mainstay of the present military forces, that would give our troopers who are forced to fight in an urban setting better protection.
THIS I DO KNOW...
Last edited:
Marinerhodes
Active member
zhjsg said:
By all means. Please present your case.
Chief:
You still have not answered the questions I have asked. It is easy to sit there and say do this and this or that and that should be done. Far harder to actually implement it.
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
Forums Grumpy Old Man
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:
Marinerhodes
Active member
Chief Bones 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.
PJ24
Active member
Chief Bones said:
How do you know the prices are inline if you don't know which systems you're refering to? How do know they present the same and/or better protection than the IBA? How do you know they're lighter?
It seems to me, you can't know which is better because you've given no specific systems to compare.
This is exactly the problem we're having, people assuming XYA armor is better without having the knowledge or facts.
No matter how hard you try, you aren't getting above NIJ IIIA without a hard plate, and that's where quite a bit of the weight comes from.
Marinerhodes
Active member
The actual "FLAK" vest weighs in at 16 lbs. and still has 90%+ torso coverage with the groin and neck protectors in. Add in the plates and like PJ said, that is where the weight comes in.
Marinerhodes
Active member
Notice it does not say anything about meeting or exceeding any of the other milspec standards. . . just specific ones.
Also in this article http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=856 all I see is alot of rhetoric about what if and why did this happen and such.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Oops ...........
I can ONLY speak for the civilian business suits I wore on my security job and as I remember only covers approx 80-85% of the torso... it WAS the latest that was available and was supposed to be rated better than their nearest competitor. This armor DID have collar and throat and crotch coverage. The chest and back plate was a composite metal impregnated ceramic/steel. It was lighter than the armor I remember from the military - according to the manufacturers, the plates would stop almost all metal jacketed hi-velocity rounds. I have no way of verifying their statements though.
There is a real possibility that we have been arguing apples and oranges ... sorry guys.
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:
I can ONLY speak for the civilian business suits I wore on my security job and as I remember only covers approx 80-85% of the torso... it WAS the latest that was available and was supposed to be rated better than their nearest competitor. This armor DID have collar and throat and crotch coverage. The chest and back plate was a composite metal impregnated ceramic/steel. It was lighter than the armor I remember from the military - according to the manufacturers, the plates would stop almost all metal jacketed hi-velocity rounds. I have no way of verifying their statements though.
There is a real possibility that we have been arguing apples and oranges ... sorry guys.