Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Soldiers told to ditch Superior body armor or lose death benefits

sailor · 01-18-2006, 04:01 AM

OK, agreed on the point that people can't just use whatever they want because they feel like it.

But here's where it gets interesting. Many of these soldiers purchased such armor because they weren't issued any by the army. There's a big difference between deciding you think some other company's armor is better and buying your own once it becomes apparent the Army can't/won't issue you any.

Further complicated by the fact that the soldiers were issued $1,000 last year to cover the costs of any additional armor or gear that they may have needed but weren't being properly issued. They were essentially told, "OK, we can't issue it, go buy it, here's $1000 to help cover it," upon which many went and had to spend more than that because there isn't any armor at that price point, and are now being told, $6000 later, that they can't use it. Whoops.

Now, I understand that the Army is a hierarchy, and if they don't want their soldiers wearing third party armor, or third party boots, or whatever, then that's how it is. I also see it from the insurance perspective of not wanting to insure something that hasn't been tested. But I think there's a bit more to it than just "tough shit, deal."

01-18-2006, 04:01 AM	#22 (permalink)
sailor beauty in the breakdown Location: Chapel Hill, NC	OK, agreed on the point that people can't just use whatever they want because they feel like it. But here's where it gets interesting. Many of these soldiers purchased such armor because they weren't issued any by the army. There's a big difference between deciding you think some other company's armor is better and buying your own once it becomes apparent the Army can't/won't issue you any. Further complicated by the fact that the soldiers were issued $1,000 last year to cover the costs of any additional armor or gear that they may have needed but weren't being properly issued. They were essentially told, "OK, we can't issue it, go buy it, here's $1000 to help cover it," upon which many went and had to spend more than that because there isn't any armor at that price point, and are now being told, $6000 later, that they can't use it. Whoops. Now, I understand that the Army is a hierarchy, and if they don't want their soldiers wearing third party armor, or third party boots, or whatever, then that's how it is. I also see it from the insurance perspective of not wanting to insure something that hasn't been tested. But I think there's a bit more to it than just "tough shit, deal." __________________ "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." --Plato