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

Superbelt · 01-06-2006, 05:29 PM

link

Anyone want to get on the ass of Rep Murtha now about not wanting to join todays military? This is what we get when we elect a CEO executive office I guess. Number crunching that decides casualties are ok as long as we save a couple bucks (given as tax cuts to the rich and/or subsidies to oil companies I suppose)

When the army decides that hundreds of Marines lives is not worth expensive, but proper armor.. What the Fuck.
The whole administration, all the Perfumed Princes. All fucking rotten to the core.
80% of the marines who died of torso wounds could have survived. 300 fvcking americans....
How fucking basic is it to make sure our troops are properly protected?
WHO IS IT THAT SUPPORTS OUR TROOPS AGAIN?
I know it sure as hell isn't the asshats that slap a $1 yellow magnet on their gas guzzling SUV.

Quote:

Extra Armor Could Have Saved Many Lives, Study Shows
By MICHAEL MOSS

A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.
...
Additional forensic studies by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's unit that were obtained by The Times indicate that about 340 American troops have died solely from torso wounds.

Military officials said they had originally decided against using the extra plates because they were concerned they added too much weight to the vests or constricted the movement of soldiers. Marine Corps officials said the findings of the Pentagon study caused field commanders to override those concerns in the interest of greater protection.
...
The findings and other research by military pathologists suggests that an analysis of all combat deaths in Iraq, including those of Army personnel, would show that 300 or more lives might have been saved with improved body armor.

Military officials and defense contractors said the Pentagon's procurement troubles have stemmed in part from miscalculations that underestimated the strength of the insurgency, and from years of cost-cutting that left some armoring firms on the brink of collapse as they waited for new orders.

shakran · 01-06-2006, 05:31 PM

Don't forget that acording to some in Bush's camp, the fact that you pointed this out means you're being disrespectful of the dead, and you're not supporting the troops.

Elphaba · 01-06-2006, 06:32 PM

Quote:

The whole administration, all the Perfumed Princes. All fucking rotten to the core.

I so miss Hack. Had he not died, the "Perfumed Princes" would have continued to have had their feet held to the fire to do right by our military.

This is just one of many examples of not providing proper protection for our troups. We have the money for grossly overstated Halliburton charges, but our boys and girls should just "suck it up." I think our chicken hawk leadership should stand in their shoes for as long as it takes.

Brewmaniac · 01-06-2006, 07:56 PM

What bullshit is this! This administration and this hard right thinking has got to GO!

Carno · 01-06-2006, 09:06 PM

Cost cutting like this is NOT new, not at all. While maybe more prevalent with this admin (who really knows anyway), it is definitely not exclusive to them. It happens and will continue to happen until the end of time.

I mean shit, why do you think we went with Sherman tanks in WW2? Because they were the best? Hell no. We went with them because we could pop them out quickly and cheaply. How many hundreds of tankers do you think lost their lives in WW2 because we didn't want to pony up for better equipment, like the Germans and later on the Russians had?

And that's just the first thing that came to mind. I could probably name off a bunch more if I really tried.

martinguerre · 01-06-2006, 09:19 PM

carn...that's hardly a convincing case. at least the argument about troop mobility has some bearing on today. but cost cutting is not the same thing in a total war and a modern conflict of convience.

this time, we have the money to spend...we're choosing to spend it on on other things.

Carno · 01-06-2006, 09:33 PM

Yeah the Sherman example is not the best, but still my point stands. There will never be a time when we spend all we could or should on troop welfare.

It just will not ever happen, no matter if it's a democrat or republican or green party or anyone. It never has and never will.

Ustwo · 01-06-2006, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

WHO IS IT THAT SUPPORTS OUR TROOPS AGAIN?
I know it sure as hell isn't the asshats that slap a $1 yellow magnet on their gas guzzling SUV.

I hear its the assholes who bitch about the military and military spending and then bitch about all aspects of a military operation with half facts and hindsight. They are the true supporters of the troops.

MoonDog · 01-06-2006, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Military officials said they had originally decided against using the extra plates because they were concerned they added too much weight to the vests or constricted the movement of soldiers.

Sounds to me like the Pentagon is saying they chose mobility over extra protection. Not being in the military, I have no idea whether mobility is a greater advantage in an urban warfare setting than protection...but it is tough to defend a decision that could have saved that many lives.

In the end, however, I get more revved up over the decisions made regarding HumVee armoring. That is a classic SNAFU.

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.

Psycho Dad · 01-07-2006, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

When the army decides that hundreds of Marines lives is not worth expensive, but proper armor..
WHO IS IT THAT SUPPORTS OUR TROOPS AGAIN?
I know it sure as hell isn't the asshats that slap a $1 yellow magnet on their gas guzzling SUV.

What does the army have to do with equipment for Marines?

And my son, who is an OIF veteran told me that he often removed the plates from his flack jacket. More plates wouldn't have been much help in that case. He also enjoys the fact that I have those yellow magnets and window decals that say "My son defends our freedom" with the big Eagle Globe and Anchor on my gas guzzling SUV. He says Marine parents are "ate up like that". He also says that support for the troops does not come from the media that publishes stories like this one that may or not be factual instead of the stories of the good things that our troops have done.

People seem to be more interested in stories where the New York Times apparently has access to "secret military studies" than any of the accounts of the men and women that are serving there.

Rekna · 01-07-2006, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I hear its the assholes who bitch about the military and military spending and then bitch about all aspects of a military operation with half facts and hindsight. They are the true supporters of the troops.

if it looks like a troll and smells like a troll it probably is a troll...

Elphaba · 01-07-2006, 11:04 AM

Thanks for the additional information, Irate.

Ustwo · 01-07-2006, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

if it looks like a troll and smells like a troll it probably is a troll...

Yes Superbelt did troll, but its been a while since he posted so I cut him some slack.

Daniel_ · 01-07-2006, 03:16 PM

Of course, not being on a war footing in a freign country would have saved 100% of troop lives.

Just ask Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, etc. etc.

Ustwo · 01-07-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel_

Of course, not being on a war footing in a freign country would have saved 100% of troop lives.

Just ask Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, etc. etc.

Ironic list, because when ever bad things happen in the world and people need real help, they don't ask Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, etc etc

dksuddeth · 01-07-2006, 04:35 PM

I'd like to note that canada does/did have troops in afghanistan, with us. In fact, we accidentally bombed 4 of them. but i suppose that doesn't mean much in some peoples eyes.

Grasshopper Green · 01-07-2006, 04:58 PM

I asked hubby about the body armor issue, and here's what he had to say. The body armor he had (which was at the beginning of the war) was the same thing the Corps has been using for years, and is effective against small arms fire, but not larger rounds, as irate already said. He kept his on at all times, because he had trained extensively with it and was used to it. He said the main problem was with Marines who removed it because they really hadn't trained with it and it did cause mobility issues. Carrying around 25 extra pounds in desert heat and being active isn't easy. He said that trying to climb anything, like a wall for instance, was next to impossible. From what he told me, having enough armor wasn't the problem, it was having the wrong type of armor.

Rekna · 01-07-2006, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yes Superbelt did troll, but its been a while since he posted so I cut him some slack.

so cutting a person some slack is trolling yourself? Ustwo your post was nothing but inflamitory comments attempting to bait people into a fight.

highthief · 01-07-2006, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ironic list, because when ever bad things happen in the world and people need real help, they don't ask Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, etc etc

But the US always comes asking Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Britain, Japan, India, Poland and dozens of other countries whenever they get a mind to invade Iraq or Afghanistan or whoever. They should stop asking for help if they don't want it and stop moaning about it if they don't get it.

highthief · 01-07-2006, 06:03 PM

Oh, wait a minute, I forgot...

Elphaba · 01-07-2006, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Oh, wait a minute, I forgot...

Easy to do, isn't it?

Where is that back arrow, again?

highthief · 01-08-2006, 03:54 AM

The Smiley always makes it all better! All sins are forgiven...

Dragonknight · 01-08-2006, 08:00 AM

As far as the interceptor vest goes, if a Marine is in Iraq he/she has one with plates. I've been there twice, and would go only to the shower without one. Yeah it's hot as hell, yeah they add about 25 pounds and two inches to the front and back of your chest making you a moving block, but oh well they help to save your life. If any of my Marines where caught without there vests and plates that was there asses bottom line. Even when it's 130 degrees you wear it or else. Drink water and cool off as well as you can, your at war so life is hard. If it comes to your comfort or life, you can be as uncomfortable as you want, as long as your alive.

shakran · 01-08-2006, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I hear its the assholes who bitch about the military and military spending and then bitch about all aspects of a military operation with half facts and hindsight. They are the true supporters of the troops.

Yeah, you're right. Because only in hindsight can we figure out that troops without body armor are less protected than troops with body armor. 20/20 hindsight is all well and good - - but legally blind foresight is pretty pathetic.

And that's a VERY nice attempt, Ustwo, to link complaints about military spending and complaints about lack of body armor. Too bad it's total crap. We can be upset that there's so much money being spent on the military, and then also be upset that, even though all that money is being spent on the military, the chickenhawks in power today still send our young troops overseas to fight without equipping them properly. Actually, your point pretty much backfires to hell and gone, doesn't it.

Superbelt · 01-09-2006, 09:02 PM

Sure, maybe it was inflammatory of me to make that generalization about the yellow ribbon magnets (made in China).
It's been my personal experience that these are the most likely, and far and away most vocal people who question my patriotism and my position on this war's devotion to country and military.
Then I see this and I think, wtf? How can I be questioned in the face of this?

Fwiw I posted this article elsewhere and got this response:

Quote:

I wore an IBAS for any and all operations in Iraq, from Ivy Blizzard in Samarra to Red Dawn in ad-Dawr to Cobra in Tikrit to the numerous tasks in Ironhorse.

They do NOT weigh down, cause decreased mobility, or anything. They make it a little bit uncomfortable when riding in a HMMWV, but that's about it.

I also remember donating to multiple drives in my area to raise money so that local VFW's and other groups could buy surplus and unwearable body armor to send to soldiers to pack around in their hv's and to buy vests to send to soldiers who have none. We shouldn't have to be providing charity to the military. We're america. We should be protecting our soldiers with the best we can give them. We aren't.

And don't immediately blame this on Clinton either. (i.e. he left and unprepared, underfunded military... which is a bullshit charge anyway). This was a war of convenience, not necessity. We had all the time we wanted, as the aggressors. This current administration entered unprepared

It's like our military administrators view their charges as disposable human waste. They see dollar signs, not people.

Seaver · 01-10-2006, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Sure, maybe it was inflammatory of me to make that generalization about the yellow ribbon magnets (made in China).
It's been my personal experience that these are the most likely, and far and away most vocal people who question my patriotism and my position on this war's devotion to country and military.
Then I see this and I think, wtf? How can I be questioned in the face of this?

Forgive me if I missed it. But I dont see anyone questioning your patriotism. I salute you for your dontation to the VFW, it shows depth of character not shown by a few members on the forum (a certain troll who will remain un-named).

I'm split. Yes the armor should have been in place. I saw on CNN that September (6-some months post-invasion) the Marines ordered 28k of these vests. However for reasons unspecified only 2k were delivered. This may be a company problem, or a simple bill that was stalled somehow in congress to allow the funding.

However the Sherman example holds true. Speed in combat is one of the most powerful weapons the American military weilds. I imagine it was a Colonel or General decided that the lack of mobility would be more detrimental to a soldier than more protection. It's easy to see as in an open battlefield standing combat (where the vest would give most effectiveness) is only done in very short bursts when advancing (under heavy covering fire). Since the armor gives very little protection to the shoulders, in a prone position it would more or less simply weigh down and bulk up the soldier.

HOWEVER, knowing they would be going into urban fighting the armor should have been in place.

highthief · 01-10-2006, 04:43 AM

Having worn body armour extensively for a few years (police armour, which weighs about 5 or 6 pounds) I can attest to it being uncomfortable. I only wore heavier 20 pound armour once for a couple of hours, and it sucked.

Having said that, if I was in Iraq or any other war zone, I'd be wearing it if I had access, regardless of how uncomfortable it can be.

soundmotor · 01-10-2006, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

But the US always comes asking Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Britain, Japan, India, Poland and dozens of other countries whenever they get a mind to invade Iraq or Afghanistan or whoever. They should stop asking for help if they don't want it and stop moaning about it if they don't get it.

I don't believe the US (meaning any president) has ever moaned about not getting help from Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Britain, Japan, India, Poland or dozens of other countries. I could be wrong though.

NoSoup · 01-12-2006, 12:10 PM

I'm not really sure I agree with some of you.

If you advocate that our troops lives are worth any amount of funding required, then why send the troops in at all? We have a variety of unmanned vehicles that could be put into production that would all but eliminate ground troops. Although this is just a guess on my part, I imagine an army of 150,000 of these machines probably would cost an absolutely ridiculous amount of money.

I'm not saying that it is right for troops to be sent in ill equipped, but from my limited experience (I have a couple of friends that just got back from Iraq) most, if not everyone does in fact have body armor, just not the absolute newest armor out there. If memory serves me correctly, there is some type of prototype armor out there that practically makes a person invincible to explosions/small arms/larger round fire. Additionally, it has some type of active camoflauge that instantly blends you into the surroundings via a camera and some type of polymer that changes color.

However, the cost? Nearly 60 million per suit...

My point, I suppose, is that for those saying that cost doesn't matter should really step back and see if they truely believe what they are saying...

highthief · 01-12-2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soundmotor

I don't believe the US (meaning any president) has ever moaned about not getting help from Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Britain, Japan, India, Poland or dozens of other countries. I could be wrong though.

You're wrong!

We got a lot of pressure up here to join the "Coalition of the Willing" and when we didn't, the diplomatic snubs and jibes started.

irateplatypus · 01-12-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

You're wrong!

We got a lot of pressure up here to join the "Coalition of the Willing" and when we didn't, the diplomatic snubs and jibes started.

I'll be surprised if you can cite single instance of a Presidential snub.

Ustwo · 01-12-2006, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

You're wrong!

We got a lot of pressure up here to join the "Coalition of the Willing" and when we didn't, the diplomatic snubs and jibes started.

Ummm if I recall ...

Quote:

Monday December 2, 2002

"What a moron." Those three words are at the heart of the latest controversy to hit the Canadian prime minister, Jean Chrétien.

They were uttered by the prime minister's spokeswoman about the president of the United States, and critics say they show the disdain Mr Chrétien's Liberal government feels for the US administration.

The controversy began almost two weeks ago at the Nato summit in Prague, when Françoise Ducros, Mr Chrétien's director of communications, described US president George Bush as a moron during a conversation with a reporter in the media briefing room.

Jibes from where?

Locobot · 01-12-2006, 03:53 PM

I'm still a little more concerned about the 100% of military KIA who would have survived if we hadn't undertaken this foolish endevour in Iraq. But then again they had weapons of mass destruction er I mean there was a mandate for democracy errrr we have a clear moral high ground because we don't torture errrrrrrrrr something what was it? OH YEAH all that sweet sweet oil just sitting there waiting to be mined by Halliburton through scandalous government contracts. That's the ticket! What's a few thousand dead military personnel, several thousand more dead private contractors, and tens of thousand dead Iraqis when we're talking about padding Dick Cheney's stock portfolio (which is fucking tits). Die for oil suckers, die for oil!

Seaver · 01-12-2006, 04:16 PM

Quote:

If memory serves me correctly, there is some type of prototype armor out there that practically makes a person invincible to explosions/small arms/larger round fire. Additionally, it has some type of active camoflauge that instantly blends you into the surroundings via a camera and some type of polymer that changes color.

Um... no. If it exists I'm sure you wouldnt have heard about it. The closest thing that that resembles is not practical in any way shape or form... its a camera placed behind the person, and shot onto him/her like a movie. Only works for one direction, not movable.

Quote:

Die for oil suckers, die for oil!

Welcome to the conversation... now make your way to the ignored seat thank you.

Locobot · 01-13-2006, 03:03 AM

Of course the executive branch has an interest in keeping armor away from our troops. It takes money out of the treasury that could otherwise be pilfered by KBR. Every dead American soldier nudges up the price of oil as well as the self-righteous indignation they can shine on anyone who would question their motives.

Those unlucky enough to be maimed but not killed will get to deal with an under-funded Veterans medical system thanks to Republican budget cuts (such sweethearts them!).

I'm surprised there are conservatives who have the gall to show their faces here after arguing so vociferously that the top 1% wealthiest Americans needed a massive tax cut. Might as well just include a bubble on the 1040 tax form where you can check for a larger tax cut and more dead U.S. military personnel. I wonder what the ratio of people recieving $5000 or more in tax cuts : to dead U.S. soldiers due to improper equipment would be. Hope it's worth it, fuckers.

Marvelous Marv · 01-15-2006, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

I'm still a little more concerned about the 100% of military KIA who would have survived if we hadn't undertaken this foolish endevour in Iraq. But then again they had weapons of mass destruction er I mean there was a mandate for democracy errrr we have a clear moral high ground because we don't torture errrrrrrrrr something what was it? OH YEAH all that sweet sweet oil just sitting there waiting to be mined by Halliburton through scandalous government contracts. That's the ticket! What's a few thousand dead military personnel, several thousand more dead private contractors, and tens of thousand dead Iraqis when we're talking about padding Dick Cheney's stock portfolio (which is fucking tits). Die for oil suckers, die for oil!

Yeah, too bad we can't adopt France's philosophy. Then 100% of our people would be sipping wine in outdoor cafe's.

Oh, wait .....

Guess I'll go out and fill up my tank with gas from the oil we stole from Iraq.

Oh, wait ....

Daniel_ · 01-15-2006, 12:46 PM

I seem to remember that when metal helmets were introduced in WW1, a number of British units refused them because they damaged visibility, and added weight.

There was some ill feeling at the time also because before helmets were standard issue, there were hardly any soldiers hospitalised with head wounds, but after they came in there were many soldiers with near fatal head injuries - this was seen in some quarters are proof that helmets made you more likely to suffer a near fatal head-wound.

What people didn't all realise at the time was that the number of head wound fatalities fell dramatically - in other words previously fatal head wounds were now ending up in hospital with life threatening injures.

Locobot · 01-16-2006, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Yeah, too bad we can't adopt France's philosophy. Then 100% of our people would be sipping wine in outdoor cafe's.
....

Yeah that would be fucking horrible

You're new to sarcasm aren't you?

01-06-2006, 07:56 PM	#4 (permalink)
Brewmaniac Searching for the perfect brew!	What bullshit is this! This administration and this hard right thinking has got to GO! __________________ "That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son"

01-06-2006, 09:06 PM	#5 (permalink)
Carno Junkie	Cost cutting like this is NOT new, not at all. While maybe more prevalent with this admin (who really knows anyway), it is definitely not exclusive to them. It happens and will continue to happen until the end of time. I mean shit, why do you think we went with Sherman tanks in WW2? Because they were the best? Hell no. We went with them because we could pop them out quickly and cheaply. How many hundreds of tankers do you think lost their lives in WW2 because we didn't want to pony up for better equipment, like the Germans and later on the Russians had? And that's just the first thing that came to mind. I could probably name off a bunch more if I really tried. __________________ http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/ Last edited by Carn; 01-06-2006 at 09:09 PM..

01-06-2006, 09:19 PM	#6 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	carn...that's hardly a convincing case. at least the argument about troop mobility has some bearing on today. but cost cutting is not the same thing in a total war and a modern conflict of convience. this time, we have the money to spend...we're choosing to spend it on on other things. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

01-06-2006, 09:33 PM	#7 (permalink)
Carno Junkie	Yeah the Sherman example is not the best, but still my point stands. There will never be a time when we spend all we could or should on troop welfare. It just will not ever happen, no matter if it's a democrat or republican or green party or anyone. It never has and never will. __________________ http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/ Last edited by Carn; 01-06-2006 at 09:36 PM..

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..

01-06-2006, 05:31 PM	#2 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Don't forget that acording to some in Bush's camp, the fact that you pointed this out means you're being disrespectful of the dead, and you're not supporting the troops.

01-07-2006, 11:04 AM	#13 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Thanks for the additional information, Irate.

01-07-2006, 03:16 PM	#15 (permalink)
Daniel_ Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It! Location: Southern England	Of course, not being on a war footing in a freign country would have saved 100% of troop lives. Just ask Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, etc. etc. __________________ ╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗ Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air, And deep beneath the rolling waves, In labyrinths of Coral Caves, The Echo of a distant time Comes willowing across the sand; And everthing is Green and Submarine ╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

01-07-2006, 04:35 PM	#17 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	I'd like to note that canada does/did have troops in afghanistan, with us. In fact, we accidentally bombed 4 of them. but i suppose that doesn't mean much in some peoples eyes. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

01-07-2006, 04:58 PM	#18 (permalink)
Grasshopper Green ...is a comical chap Location: Where morons reign supreme	I asked hubby about the body armor issue, and here's what he had to say. The body armor he had (which was at the beginning of the war) was the same thing the Corps has been using for years, and is effective against small arms fire, but not larger rounds, as irate already said. He kept his on at all times, because he had trained extensively with it and was used to it. He said the main problem was with Marines who removed it because they really hadn't trained with it and it did cause mobility issues. Carrying around 25 extra pounds in desert heat and being active isn't easy. He said that trying to climb anything, like a wall for instance, was next to impossible. From what he told me, having enough armor wasn't the problem, it was having the wrong type of armor. __________________ "They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king" Formerly Medusa

01-07-2006, 06:03 PM	#21 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Oh, wait a minute, I forgot... __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

01-08-2006, 03:54 AM	#23 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	The Smiley always makes it all better! All sins are forgiven... __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

01-08-2006, 08:00 AM	#24 (permalink)
Dragonknight Insane Location: Hawaii	As far as the interceptor vest goes, if a Marine is in Iraq he/she has one with plates. I've been there twice, and would go only to the shower without one. Yeah it's hot as hell, yeah they add about 25 pounds and two inches to the front and back of your chest making you a moving block, but oh well they help to save your life. If any of my Marines where caught without there vests and plates that was there asses bottom line. Even when it's 130 degrees you wear it or else. Drink water and cool off as well as you can, your at war so life is hard. If it comes to your comfort or life, you can be as uncomfortable as you want, as long as your alive. __________________ Freedom is NOT Free.

01-10-2006, 04:43 AM	#28 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Having worn body armour extensively for a few years (police armour, which weighs about 5 or 6 pounds) I can attest to it being uncomfortable. I only wore heavier 20 pound armour once for a couple of hours, and it sucked. Having said that, if I was in Iraq or any other war zone, I'd be wearing it if I had access, regardless of how uncomfortable it can be. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

01-12-2006, 12:10 PM	#30 (permalink)
NoSoup Non-Rookie Location: Green Bay, WI	I'm not really sure I agree with some of you. If you advocate that our troops lives are worth any amount of funding required, then why send the troops in at all? We have a variety of unmanned vehicles that could be put into production that would all but eliminate ground troops. Although this is just a guess on my part, I imagine an army of 150,000 of these machines probably would cost an absolutely ridiculous amount of money. I'm not saying that it is right for troops to be sent in ill equipped, but from my limited experience (I have a couple of friends that just got back from Iraq) most, if not everyone does in fact have body armor, just not the absolute newest armor out there. If memory serves me correctly, there is some type of prototype armor out there that practically makes a person invincible to explosions/small arms/larger round fire. Additionally, it has some type of active camoflauge that instantly blends you into the surroundings via a camera and some type of polymer that changes color. However, the cost? Nearly 60 million per suit... My point, I suppose, is that for those saying that cost doesn't matter should really step back and see if they truely believe what they are saying... __________________ I have an aura of reliability and good judgement. Just in case you were wondering...

01-12-2006, 03:53 PM	#34 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	I'm still a little more concerned about the 100% of military KIA who would have survived if we hadn't undertaken this foolish endevour in Iraq. But then again they had weapons of mass destruction er I mean there was a mandate for democracy errrr we have a clear moral high ground because we don't torture errrrrrrrrr something what was it? OH YEAH all that sweet sweet oil just sitting there waiting to be mined by Halliburton through scandalous government contracts. That's the ticket! What's a few thousand dead military personnel, several thousand more dead private contractors, and tens of thousand dead Iraqis when we're talking about padding Dick Cheney's stock portfolio (which is fucking tits). Die for oil suckers, die for oil!

01-13-2006, 03:03 AM	#36 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	Of course the executive branch has an interest in keeping armor away from our troops. It takes money out of the treasury that could otherwise be pilfered by KBR. Every dead American soldier nudges up the price of oil as well as the self-righteous indignation they can shine on anyone who would question their motives. Those unlucky enough to be maimed but not killed will get to deal with an under-funded Veterans medical system thanks to Republican budget cuts (such sweethearts them!). I'm surprised there are conservatives who have the gall to show their faces here after arguing so vociferously that the top 1% wealthiest Americans needed a massive tax cut. Might as well just include a bubble on the 1040 tax form where you can check for a larger tax cut and more dead U.S. military personnel. I wonder what the ratio of people recieving $5000 or more in tax cuts : to dead U.S. soldiers due to improper equipment would be. Hope it's worth it, fuckers.

01-15-2006, 12:46 PM	#38 (permalink)
Daniel_ Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It! Location: Southern England	I seem to remember that when metal helmets were introduced in WW1, a number of British units refused them because they damaged visibility, and added weight. There was some ill feeling at the time also because before helmets were standard issue, there were hardly any soldiers hospitalised with head wounds, but after they came in there were many soldiers with near fatal head injuries - this was seen in some quarters are proof that helmets made you more likely to suffer a near fatal head-wound. What people didn't all realise at the time was that the number of head wound fatalities fell dramatically - in other words previously fatal head wounds were now ending up in hospital with life threatening injures. __________________ ╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗ Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air, And deep beneath the rolling waves, In labyrinths of Coral Caves, The Echo of a distant time Comes willowing across the sand; And everthing is Green and Submarine ╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝