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
RE: barking up the wrong tree by PowerPointSamurai
I did read the article, but I still disagree. Of course the USMC study found more fatal wounds and people who could’ve been saved from lack of side armor. Looking at just fatal wounds and figuring out who would’ve lived, that’s a no brainer. They did not look at all wounds and fatal wounds from what I’ve seen, or even hits from enemy fire, so of course there are going to be more fatal wounds from places that are less armored, but are those areas at all likely to be hit? I also didn’t see any mention of studying the context in which they were wounded. Were they enveloped with people firing from all sides? Were these dismounts? Vehicle riders?
You also say the additional armor would be better for vehicle riders and the problem with weight might be a concern for the dismounts only. I would say the opposite. In some contexts, like Fallujah where you had a lot of urban fighting the extra armor might’ve been a good thing for some of those guys. I think a lot of vehicle riders could face even worse consequenses from more personal gear if they can’t turn to fire, get out of the vehicle in an emergency and so on. More personal body armor ain’t going to do much for an IED hit except maybe give added protection from fragments. That’s why I said add the armor to the vehicle. But as one of the guys here said, in the armor vs. gun fight the gun always comes out on top.
Yup, and I’m sure there are problems with the logisitics system and the manufacturers, the procurement system, etc. No excuse for that stuff and it needs to be fixed. There is also no excuse for politicians on both sides of the aisle flinging this around and pointing fingers. I doubt this surfaced on anyone’s RADAR on this level until now, and they need to fix the problem, not score points here. Like I said before, the POTUS isn’t sitting up at the white house personally designing body armor, and I’m sure most of the congress doesn’t lie awake at night trying to figure out how they can ship shoddy armor to us.
RE: barking up the wrong tree by mikeforbes
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 …
OK, just stop right there. Does anyone else see the glaring flaws in that statement? The NYT gets its hands on a "secret" (actually "Unclassified/FOUO") study and jumps to all kinds of sensational conclusions without analyzing the data. Don’t let the authorititive-sounding numbers ("80 percent") and theories ("might have survived") fool you. From what I’ve read, this study was seriously deficient, and no decisions should be made without further investigation.
For starters, it appears to examine fatality cases only. Where’s the control group to compare the data to? Did the study collect data on soldiers who were wounded, but survived? Or on soldiers whose vests stopped the bullet/fragment, and prevented a wound, fatal or otherwise? That does not appear to be the case, and the results of this study are useless without that information.
Next, does the study standardize its definition of how much "extra body armor" would have theoretically saved these troops? For example, "x percent of the fatalities may have survived, given an additional 6"x8" side armor plate, or a x% increase in the surface area of the front armor plate." I doubt it, or the percentage (80) that "could have survived" would likely be much smaller. It sounds like the "other" 20% were the ones that sustained such catastrophic wounds (massive blast trauma, for example) that no amount of additional armor would have made a difference, and the "80%" figure just lumps everyone else together. So don’t jump to the seemingly logical (but incorrect) conclusion that these specific armor upgrades that have "been available since 2003" (another bit of data whose validity I seriously doubt) would have saved all of that 80% figure.
Finally, did the study (or the NYT reporter) do any analysis at all about what the potential negative effects of such additional armor might be? I won’t go into detail here, but decreased mobility (both while riding in vehicles and while on foot), increased soldier fatigue/heat injury, and decreased personal weapons accuracy are just a few of the factors that must be considered in this equation … but were not, because they were beyond the scope of the quoted study. On to the next point:
>in a country with as much money and resources as the US, that’s absurd.
Come on, I know you’re not that naive. Yes, the US is rich and powerful. But this isn’t WWII, and there are not dedicated-to-military-equipment factories on every corner. Up-armoring HMMWVs is a pretty specialized process, and not very many places are capable of doing it. It’s physics and economics, not politics. Calm down.
>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 actual difference in surface area protected is only 8%, according to the link you provided, and on the sides and back of the head, the rim of the new helmet is maybe an inch higher than the old one. Not a very significant difference, in my estimation. And do you know WHY it’s higher, protecting minimally less of the head? Two reasons:
So disagree with me if you choose, but I don’t think that bigger armor plates, more armor plates, heavier HMMWVs, and bigger helmets will solve any more problems than they create. The difference in philosophy is one of passive vs. active protection measures. I’ll break it down: heavier HMMWVs, bigger helmets, more and heavier plates in body armor vests are all passive measures. The ACH design and accepting lighter body armor for more mobility are active measures (or, more accurately, create the conditions for active measures). I personally prefer the latter. Why? Because in combat, the side that relies on passive measures virtually guarantees their own defeat. They become a crutch, gradually replacing discipline, situational awareness, and superior skill, while transferring the responsibility for personal survival from yourself to someone else far away ("the Pentagon," "evil corporations," etc.).
Now I can appreciate, to a certain extent, the utility of investigative journalism to expose legitimate wrongdoing by corporate and military executives. However, I’d really appreciate it if that vast and vocal group of reporters and "activists" who neither possess the minimally sufficient amount of knowledge of this topic to carry on an intelligent debate, nor the inclination to educate themselves, would kindly refrain from publishing such disinformation, and instead simply STFU.
RE: barking up the wrong tree by nickfranklin
>From what I’ve read, this study was seriously deficient,
>and no decisions should be made without further investigation
yes, the nytimes article was written by civilians who don’t know what FOUO means. and nowhere did they discuss the issues of heat, weight, etc. but are you saying the marine study was deficient? the marines are (supposedly) trying to procure a new vest based off that study, and a couple other like it. (can anyone confirm or deny that?) mikeforbes, i don’t know you… are you a statistician? a pathologist of some kind? i’m just an armor officer—but i’ve seen two guys get shot through gaps in their vests now, one of who died pretty horribly, and it pisses me off.
>Come on, I know you’re not that naive. Yes, the
>US is rich and powerful. But this isn’t WWII, and
>there are not dedicated-to-military-equipment
>factories on every corner. Up-armoring HMMWVs
>is a pretty specialized process, and not very
>many places are capable of doing it. It’s physics
>and economics, not politics. Calm down.
calm down yourself, man. here’s a question for you—i can get stars and stripes out here every day, i can get a latte in a "green beans" aafes style coffee place, i can even get full color glossy CFC booklets dropped on me en masse, to read in the glow from any of the ten full color three and a half foot wide plasma screens in our little consolidated brigade TOC. if i really had the urge, i could even then hold down a CFC booklet to keep it from blowing away (while i sipped my latte) with a (non-ruggedized) RFI’d palm pilot. but there’s not money for more armored humvees? the physics of the process are that esoteric? if they’re looking for some CFC booklet factories to convert, i can probably google them a street address.
army logistics are horrible, and lacking hugely in both the oversight and efficiency departments. these problems are yet a few more facets of the same system that made it impossible to get M240 barrels with front sight posts (for the dismount kits) in my last iraq rotation, or issued me a single pair of boots (which promptly fell apart), but was able to somehow field a PVAB. want to talk passive measures? there’s one for you.
as an aside: real active measures would include controlling battlespace to keep bad guys from putting IEDs on the roads in the first place, but that’s another article entirely.
something else: you’re right, fighting weight is approaching what used to be called sustainment weight, and it’s not good. if we go further down that line of discussion, however, i’ll bring up lighter and more expensive materials and superior civilian products, then you’ll say it’s a political and economic problem, and then you’ll tell me to calm down. so let’s avoid that entirely. i’m calm.
there’s been a couple articles on col hackworth’s website about the IBA contracting process, and some alternatives which for whatever reason weren’t explored.
as for the helmets:
>The actual difference in surface area protected is
>only 8%, according to the link you provided, and on
>the sides and back of the head, the rim of the new
>helmet is maybe an inch higher than the old one.
>Not a very significant difference, in my estimation.
right. in LTC Poffenbarger’s estimation, however, it is significant. he’s the brain surgeon at the 31st CSH who said back in August that particular eight percent, on the sides and back of the head, is leading to maybe a 30% increase in brain stem injuries. (mirror of the original article, which i can only find for free, oddly enough, on the tricare website… sorry.) now the helmet’s new padding is great—the padding reduces shock hugely, like a motorcycle helmet. that’s why the marines stuck with the old shape and the new materials for most of their troops. (force recon guys are getting the same smaller helmet we have.)
the point i was trying to make, and maybe i wrote my last little piece too quickly to check it for tone (or overall sense), was that it’s not just political votemongering or yellow journalism leading to these kinds of stories. they’ve persisted since the start of this war because there are problems with our supply systems. and there always have been. (anyone know the history of the word shoddy?)
STFU
the hallmark of intelligent debate. thank you, mikeforbes.
RE: barking up the wrong tree by mikeforbes
>are you saying the marine study was deficient? the marines are (supposedly) trying to procure a new vest based off that study, and a couple other like it.
Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. I think making procurement decisions based on a study that appears (at least to me) to be significantly lacking in its analysis is dangerous and ill-advised.
>mikeforbes, i don’t know you… are you a statistician? a pathologist of some kind?
No. And I’ve also seen guys that have been wounded or killed by impacts to non- or lightly-armored areas of the body. Yes, it’s horrible, but I’m not convinced that adding more and more armor to vests is the solution, particularly at today’s state of technology.
>army logistics are horrible
As a sweeping generality, I’ll agree with that statement, and your point about Green Bean coffee and Palm Pilots and plasma screens. However, none of that changes the fact that there are a finite number of HMMWV-armoring factories, and a finite number of companies that are capable/willing to provide such a product, regardless of the amount of money the Mighty U.S. Government is willing to throw at the issue.
>as an aside: real active measures would include …
Yeah, don’t get me started. That is a whole different article … or series of articles.
Back to the helmet issue: Yes, my "estimation" is based on gut feeling and anecdotal evidence, at best. But:
>In about a third of the cases, the shrapnel was penetrating the skull in areas that he [LTC Poffenbarger] figured would have been covered by the old helmet.
How does he know this for sure? Again, his sample size was both very small (50 patients) and biased (he only saw injury cases, and had no way of tracking any sort of control data). But regardless, my original point still stands: I’d rather be able to hear what’s going on and be able to see/shoot effectively that have an extra inch of helmet coverage, no matter what decisions the Marines have made about the issue, or whether this doctor’s "30%" figure is exactly right (which I doubt). Everything’s a trade-off.
>the hallmark of intelligent debate
That wasn’t aimed at you, in case I didn’t make that clear … but you’re right, I’ll try to keep my frustration with the MSM reined in a little more. Proceed, sir.
RE: barking up the wrong tree by PowerPointSamurai
the nytimes article was written by civilians who don’t know what FOUO means.
If they report on the government at all, I assure you they do. But whether they care or not or if FOUO precludes them from reporting it is debatable.
The Marine study is deficient for the reasons mikeforbes said and others. They didn’t study the context of the injuries or the number and types of hits and wounds in general to see just how significant the deaths they studied were in the overall picture. I’m not saying the guys who died from those impacts were not significant, what I am saying is do we truly know that adding that armor would’ve saved more lives, or would it have lead to other unforseen deaths in other circumstances? Then we can intelligently apply fixes to the body armor in the contexts where it will help, and tailor the armor to the environment better. If the answer really is more armor is better in all situations, so be it.
BTW, not to poke the USMC in the eye with an ad-hom attack, but they have been very wrong on procurement before, and yet have a disproportionately loud lobby at congress. The Army and Marines co-developed the MOLE system, but the Army decided it needed some improvements after testing it with SF guys. The Marines adopted it wholesale right away while criticizing the Army for being "lethargic and bureaucratic". Then Marines started popping up with back injuries because of the lumbar support problems the SF guys identified right away. I could go on, but again, my intent here is not to sit here and initiate a parochial interservice rivalry driven brawl.
I think such a study could be done with available combat data and could be done quickly. I think leaders and Soldiers/Marines at the unit level should be able to veto whatever decision is made and opt for full armor or less armor depending on their assessment of their situation and mission within reason.
As for blaming Army logistics, that’s pretty intellectually lazy. Identify specific reforms—and mind you some of the problems are codified in law, such as congressional budget constraints, etc. I hate it too, but I’ve heard the expression "That’s a different pocket of money" or "a different color of money" a few too many times. On the other hand, that’s what congress tells you you are going to spend the money on. For example, GEN Shinseki got called on the carpet badly back in 2000 for diverting money for MWR and housing into operational funds. Congress beat his butt.
As for the helmets, I’m not a fan of the ACH either, but it was specifically made to address complaints Soldiers and Marines have been making for years about the "fritz" PASGT kevlar helmet, i.e. the weight, sound attenuation (lots of Infantry guys opting to wear patrol caps on patrol because they can’t hear with the helmet on—NO head protection!), and most importantly, the fact that the Fritz restricted your head movement in the prone when it hit the IBA—especially with the neck collar on. These aren’t issues that can be wished away, but you again, maybe this is a case where the old helmet might be better for some in some contexts than for others and we should retain both.
I guess one thing that this whole discussion misses is that the IBAS is wildly successful. 2000+ casualties in the environment we’ve been in now since 2003 is a frigging miricle. How many lives have been saved with the IBAS? I know of a LOT of guys who were hit in the head, back or chest that walked away, and MAYBE had to replace a plate or DX a vest. A good % of those 2000 couldn’t have been saved by any amount of improvement to the armor either—like those 4ID 3-67 AR guys who were literally blown out of their M1A2SEP. I’m not saying lets not make improvements to the system, and even one death is a tragedy—lets keep making this thing better. But to say the IBAS is a POS and that "the Army Logistics System" or your least favorite political party doesn’t care about making it better and saving lives is BS.
RE: barking up the wrong tree by Brandon
Just a suggestion, you can use three double quotes in a row at the start of a paragraph to set it apart as a block quote. That and other features that can be used in comments are detailed on the OmniNerd Markup page.
New Armor Changes by LordDilly
Check out the Army’s latest update for uniform/armor.