0 Votes
The Politics of Body Armor
The U.S. Army announced plans Tuesday to issue improved protective equipment to troops in Iraq this year, in the form of side-panel inserts for the Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) vests. The IBA improvement program is perhaps a consequence of an internal Marine Corps study that showed a significant percentage of casualties resulted from impacts to lesser-protected areas of the vest.
But rather than applauding the improvements, some lawmakers have taken the position that the older version of the body armor (without such side protection) amounts to negligence on the part of the manufacturer, the Pentagon, and the Bush Administration. The DoD’s response continues to be that equipment improvements such as this represent a significant logistical challenge and do not happen overnight. Furthermore, additional body armor means more weight for already overburdened soldiers to carry, and the increase in protection may come at the price of decreased capability, particularly in rifle marksmanship and mobility.
Is the criticism of the DoD merely an attempt to politicize a purely technical issue, or should this ‘improvement’ have been made long ago? Was the addition of this improved armor simply an attempt to deflect such political criticism in the first place?
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- No Confidence in Congress, by VnutZ about 5 years ago
- The Return of Russia as a Superpower, by VnutZ over 5 years ago
- The Breaking of the British Hostages , by Anonymous about 6 years ago
- Rumsfeld to Resign as Secretary of Defense, by VnutZ over 6 years ago
Print Friendly
Write an Article
Bi-Partisan Bickering by Rhodizzle
As the article states, these lawmakers are Democrats. To be honest I think this is just another example of our governments bi-partisan bickering about subjects that no longer matter. Instead of arguing about the old version of the body armor, why not put your efforts into making sure that the soldiers get the new version as soon as possible. I can’t find the link right now but there was a similar situation at the Alito hearings yesterday where Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Specter got into it about some issue regarding Alito’s past.
Never Enough by PowerPointSamurai
There was also a really nasty letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune from a guy who seems to think President Bush personally designs the body armor we use.
I and others here on OmniNerd have actually worn this armor and I have to wonder who can sit and criticize the current iteration so badly. It was great stuff. Unfortunately even the best designs and most wildly successful weapons systems reveal little things that need to be upgraded when you use them in a real combat environment. The original IBAS did a great job of protecting vital areas without encumbering the wearer. Side plates seem like a "good to have" thing, but I wonder how many people will opt for the extra weight. You could stretch the argument about the need for more armor to the utterly ridiculous and insist on 360 coverage with the Soldier/Marine sealed inside an armor cocoon.
The vast majority of hits you are likely to take when you are upright are in the front, which is already well protected. So is the back, in case you are hit unaware, in an ambush, etc. Most people’s torso would be protected by their arms, at least when in an upright position. The whole vest is rated for protection against 9mm bullets, with the plates rated against 7.62 rifle fire. There are arm sleeves that have been around for quite a while too for added protection to the extremities and by proxy to the sides of the torso. The Chicago Tribune article seemed to imply the additional torso armor was to protect people driving vehicles in convoys. I would argue that better vehicle armor is the key there, not body armor.
I also see Mike’s point about more armor being a hinderance and causing survivability problems because of reduced mobility. I see this being a DISASTER for air assault troops doing any kind of rappel operation. There’s a plethora of situations where reduced mobility could grossly outweigh the dubious added value of extra armor in the side quadrants of the vest—which again would be better addressed for vehicle born Soldiers and Marines with better vehicle armor.
barking up the wrong tree by nickfranklin
not sure all you guys commenting read the source material mikeforbes linked to.
i’m pretty sure the story originally broke in the new york times on 6 jan. (there’s a mirror for free, if you’re not a subscriber.)
some key points:
the new issue is based on statistical evidence. yes, a certain amount of armor is too little, and a certain amount is too much, but there’s definitely a range of what’s appropriate, based on mission. from the times article:
-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.
The ceramic plates in vests currently worn by the majority of military personnel in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back. In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines’ shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.
Thirty-one of the deadly wounds struck the chest or back so close to the plates that simply enlarging the existing shields "would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," according to the study, which was obtained by The New York Times.
-what does that mean? it means that even while joe running around on the ground might be overencumbered to a point where extra protection wasn’t worth it, joe sitting in the humvee is probably someone who would benefit greatly from the armor. does armoring trucks make more sense? sure… but it also costs more, and it’s harder to field trucks, even when truck procurement isn’t screwy as all hell. from the same article:
-Meanwhile, the Pentagon is still relying on another small factory in Ohio to armor all of the military’s principal transport truck, the Humvee, and it remains backlogged with orders. The facility, owned by Armor Holdings, increased production in December after reports in The Times about delays drew criticism from Congress. But the Marine Corps said it is still waiting for about 2,000 of these vehicles to replace other Humvees in Iraq that are more lightly armored, and does not expect final delivery until June.
-in a country with as much money and resources as the US, that’s absurd.
something else: yes, it’s better than nothing, or the old vietnam flak vests, but IBA, like a lot of the other equipment we’ve got recently (the ACH and the ACU spring to mind) have serious flaws. (the ACH, while lighter and more comfortable, is designed for a different kind of fight—with IEDs the primary killer in iraq right now, a helmet which protects less of the head might not be such a good idea. the ACU just keeps falling apart when i wear it.) don’t take my word for it, take Natick’s. from the SFTT article mikeforbes linked to:
U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center-Natick (SSC-Natick, Massachusetts), has known for at least several years that its in-house designed Interceptor body armor was not nearly as effective as other civilian body armor products already in production…
-yes, i understand that army procurement makes it hard to rapidly field equipment, and ever since the first time i got shot at, i’ve loved my IBA dearly. but i also saw a guy die who got shot through a gap in it from the front, the same gap that supposedly iraqi snipers are now exploiting. and now, as it turns out, my vest wasn’t any good anyway. i just had to turn it in for DX. why? because (from the same article),
…
Since last May the Army and Marine Corps have recalled more than 23,000 body armor vests…
-why? well—again in the SFTT article—there’s normal failure, and there’s slow army procurement, and then there’s criminal neglect and a systematic lack of oversight on behalf of the army.
As early as July 19, 2004, according to memos originally obtained by the Army Times newspaper, the Marine Corps found "major quality assurance deficiencies within Point Blank." One month later, on August 24, 2004, the military rejected two orders from Point Blank after tests revealed that the vests did not meet safety requirements…
…
In January, 2005 Point Blank’s CEO, a Long Island, New York businessman, gained a bit of notoriety for giving his 12-year-old daughter a $10 million party at a swank New York eatery…
…
Another Interceptor body armor manufacturer, formerly known as Second Chance Body Armor, Inc., is currently under investigation by the Justice Department for fraud for knowingly selling body armor that can’t stop bullets from killing its wearers. …
-nothing presented here should be particuarly shocking to anyone reading this who’s worked with army logistics. is it a politically charged issue? yes. does the army logistics system need to change? without a doubt.
anyway. i apologize for this post being so choppy. talk amongst yourselves. n
New Armor Changes by LordDilly
Check out the Army’s latest update for uniform/armor.