Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - 80% of torso KIA marines could have survived if we ponied up the cash for armor

irateplatypus · 01-07-2006, 03:43 AM

i'll cut many of you some slack by assuming you're not familiar with the military requisition process... but like all stories, this has more wrinkles in it than can fit into a single article. the body-armor saga has been going on for several years now. any real shortages seem to have less to do with budgets and more to do with unanticipated needs/circumstances.

there isn't a single monolithic entity known as "body armor" that simply has to roll off assembly lines. our inventories have been going through a recent change with several possible different configurations. when news reporters say that troops don't have enough body armor, they're most often saying that those troops do not have the most recent version.

the classic version, the flak jacket, has been around for a while. it's considerable weight at 25 lbs does not lend itself to extended foot-patrols in a 110-115 degree environment such as iraq.

its replacement, the interceptor system, is a relatively new technology. the design was finalized about 6 years ago. the climate for defense spending in the late-nineties did not lend itself to replacing armor for every ground-pounder... so supply could not meet demand when the U.S. engaged in a world-war with two large fronts a couple years later.

another problem that has plagued the issue is poorly manufactured vests not meeting the military's criteria. about the only thing worse than have a heavy outdated vest would be wearing a brand-new one that was likely to fail. the marine corps has accepted close to 19,000 vests that do not meet their safety specs. losing faith in that manufacturer caused the marines to decline delivery of thousands more of the armor-systems.

i couldn't discern whether the article's cited studies took this into account, or whether the author chose to include this in his report, but...

are we certain that each marine KIA did not have a vest issued to him? the system comes in two main parts: an outer tactical vest for small rounds and larger armor plates for larger ones. what if a marine was just wearing his vest for mobility (without the plates) but was killed by a large round?

what if a marine had body-armor available, but chose not to wear it? additionally, does the study take into account marines killed in chow-halls? how about those killed inside a base by mortars lobbed over the fence? what if the extreme heat led him to loosen his vest right before unexpected combat?

these are all considerations that must be made (and may have been made by the pentagon study cited) but are unable to be discerned by the linked article. i know that the army signed a $190 million dollar contract for over a third of a million of these things a couple years back. once the need became apparent, the large cogs of military bureaucracy actually seemed to respond fairly quickly. when you think that troop levels in iraq hover in the 140-150 thousand range.... a ~350,000 vest purchase by a single service is a substantial response to need.

i'm not saying that all the right decisions were made, but i do think that funding was less of an obstacle than some of the others encountered in the whole process.

01-07-2006, 03:43 AM	#10 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	i'll cut many of you some slack by assuming you're not familiar with the military requisition process... but like all stories, this has more wrinkles in it than can fit into a single article. the body-armor saga has been going on for several years now. any real shortages seem to have less to do with budgets and more to do with unanticipated needs/circumstances. there isn't a single monolithic entity known as "body armor" that simply has to roll off assembly lines. our inventories have been going through a recent change with several possible different configurations. when news reporters say that troops don't have enough body armor, they're most often saying that those troops do not have the most recent version. the classic version, the flak jacket, has been around for a while. it's considerable weight at 25 lbs does not lend itself to extended foot-patrols in a 110-115 degree environment such as iraq. its replacement, the interceptor system, is a relatively new technology. the design was finalized about 6 years ago. the climate for defense spending in the late-nineties did not lend itself to replacing armor for every ground-pounder... so supply could not meet demand when the U.S. engaged in a world-war with two large fronts a couple years later. another problem that has plagued the issue is poorly manufactured vests not meeting the military's criteria. about the only thing worse than have a heavy outdated vest would be wearing a brand-new one that was likely to fail. the marine corps has accepted close to 19,000 vests that do not meet their safety specs. losing faith in that manufacturer caused the marines to decline delivery of thousands more of the armor-systems. i couldn't discern whether the article's cited studies took this into account, or whether the author chose to include this in his report, but... are we certain that each marine KIA did not have a vest issued to him? the system comes in two main parts: an outer tactical vest for small rounds and larger armor plates for larger ones. what if a marine was just wearing his vest for mobility (without the plates) but was killed by a large round? what if a marine had body-armor available, but chose not to wear it? additionally, does the study take into account marines killed in chow-halls? how about those killed inside a base by mortars lobbed over the fence? what if the extreme heat led him to loosen his vest right before unexpected combat? these are all considerations that must be made (and may have been made by the pentagon study cited) but are unable to be discerned by the linked article. i know that the army signed a $190 million dollar contract for over a third of a million of these things a couple years back. once the need became apparent, the large cogs of military bureaucracy actually seemed to respond fairly quickly. when you think that troop levels in iraq hover in the 140-150 thousand range.... a ~350,000 vest purchase by a single service is a substantial response to need. i'm not saying that all the right decisions were made, but i do think that funding was less of an obstacle than some of the others encountered in the whole process. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 01-07-2006 at 03:48 AM..