# Marines Call New Body Armor Heavy, Impractical



## Snaquebite (Feb 27, 2008)

BAGHDAD, Iraq —  The Pentagon and Marine Corps authorized the purchase of 84,000 bulletproof vests in 2006 that not only are too heavy but are so impractical that some U.S. Marines are asking for their old vests back so they can remain agile enough to fight.

Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway wants to know who authorized the costly purchase of the nearly 30-pound flak jackets and has ordered the Marine procurement officers at the Quantico base in Virginia to halt the rest of an unfilled order, FOX News has learned.

"I’m not quite sure how we got to where we are, but what I do know is it is not a winner," Conway told FOX News at the end of his recent trip to Iraq.

"I think it is foolish to buy more."

The protective jackets, manufactured by Protective Products International in Sunrise, Fla., are known as Modular Tactical Vests, or MTVs.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333154,00.html


----------



## 8'Duece (Feb 27, 2008)

Seem the Commandant, General Conway, is looking to bust someone behinds for this purchase approval. 

More over at Fox News.

Somebody's got some splainin to do.


----------



## JustAnotherJ (Feb 27, 2008)

that vest doesn't look too far off of what is already in use.  how the hell did they cram so much weight into that thing?  Double layer kevler? Dick/Ass plates? Then again, i haven't even weighed my armor to know the difference, i just shut up and wear it.

I could see that shit being good for convoy ops or aircrew.


----------



## Mac82 (Feb 27, 2008)

3 pounds doesn't seem that significant, depending on what the added protection benefit is..  Especially if it is distributed more evenly as it indicates.

The issue seems to be the construction design..  I can tell you, I sometimes put my kit on over my head if I am in a hurry, and that Goddamn scraped nose hurts like Hell!!   Done that.    Looks kinda questionable too.

The Corp is taking a beating lately on equipment issues...Sucks.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Feb 27, 2008)

I guarantee you an investigation of the COR that signed this contract is underway right now. Typically senior ranking members of the military retire, see $$ signs, and campaign for their 'company / 'corporation' to win high dollar contracts. 

if the R & D is done correctly, the best product for the best price wins. 

Low bidder not always the case, and, it appears, low quality either......

With the military the way it is now after the CPA, TSGTs in the AF are COR's on high $$$/millions of $$$ contracts (and the Army, too ... SSG's/SFC's) 

Someone will go down for this one....Any kinks in the R & D chain / bidding process will be scrutinized down the the dotted i's.....

Inferior heavy body armor is a thing of the past / dinosaur age...

:2c::2c:


----------



## 0699 (Feb 27, 2008)

Hmmm...

I've got the MTV over here right now.  Is it the best thing since sliced bread?  No.  Is it better than the old Interceptor vest?  Yes.  It rides better, it sits higher so you aren't catching it on stuff, it has semi-built in pockets for the side SAPIs (vice them flapping around like in the older systems), and has better attachment points for pouches and such.  I know some people don't like the "over the head" system, and it gets on my nerves too, seeing as how I have an extra large head.  But once you adjust it right, it's better than the old vest and actually slips on pretty easily.

I don't think the problem is the MTV per-say.  The problem is the concept that if we cover ourselves with enough armor we won't lose any Marines.  Or if we put enough armor on our vehicles then no one will get killed on patrol.  We all know how the heavy armor thing worked out for the medieval knights...

I'd hate to do NK with the armor systems and philosophy we have now.


----------



## JBS (Feb 27, 2008)

C'mon guys.  Unfuck this already.

How hard is it to get the body armor issue unfucked?

We can shoot down a friggin satellite traveling 18,000 mph, 180 miles above the earth- the equivalent of shooting a gnat with a .223; we can make radio-controlled stealth airplanes with enough power to destroy a city block, guided by someone with a laptop from 4-thousand miles away.

I think we can get this dang-blamed body armor issue resolved.


----------



## The91Bravo (Feb 28, 2008)

I did not see any images attached in the Fox article.

Anyone got any??


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 28, 2008)

I thought the MTV (was a cable station), sorry had to.

Seriously, I thought MTV and IOTV were the same.  The side plates are incorporated into the vest, less snagging getting in/out (my ruck straps always seem to snag one of the side plates when I take it off).

Moms/Dads think looking like a turtle will get Jr home safe, congress forces gear on us to make mom/dad/spouse happy, and the joes live and adapt.


----------



## Snaquebite (Feb 28, 2008)

*MTV Pics*


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Feb 28, 2008)

Jesus, they're really getting out of controll with this whole armor thing. I understand the whole concept like SOWT said makes mom/dad/spouse happy, and probably makes some of the troops feel safer. I've been there many times, and like anybody else I like too have some nice body Armor.  But come on, body armor is like the Bell curve. Too little and it's not worth having because it won't protect anything, but too much and you can't freaking move to engage the enemy. You end up looking like the Michelin man. 

It's like when I was working out of one of the Camps in Iraq and you see these turret gunners wearing more or less an EOD suit. Great he's protected from head to toe, now how the hell is he suppose to quickly unass that vehicle when it catches fire or gets ambushed, it took him damn near 20 seconds just to get into the damn thing. :doh:

You have to except the fact that people will get shoot and people will die. Hell, until they make a forcefield you can put a sapi plate on every part of the torso you want but thats only going to make a slow moving target thats bullet proof from the waist up. 

I don't even want to think about trying to do a long range foot patrol in Iraq or Afganistan in the summer time wearing that damn thing plus, a kevlar, plus ammo, plus mission essential gear.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Feb 28, 2008)

I'm dealing with the same issues right now.  People in the CoC seem to think that mobility is not important.  A large, cumbersome vest will get people killed.  The fuckers who make these kind of decisions are not the same people who wear the vests everyday.


----------



## 03Gunner31 (Feb 28, 2008)

Mac82 said:


> 3 pounds doesn't seem that significant



thats *a lot *of weight when youre on a patrol...


----------



## Mac82 (Feb 28, 2008)

Mac82 said:


> 3 pounds doesn't seem that significant,



You responded...



03Gunner31 said:


> thats *a lot *of weight when youre on a patrol...





I know, and agree...But what I said was.....




Mac82 said:


> 3 pounds doesn't seem that significant, *depending on what the added protection benefit is..  Especially if it is distributed more evenly as it indicates.
> *



Please don't take what I said out of context to make it appear like I have never humped a ruck or walked a patrol.

 I agree with you, any weight is alot on a patrol. But personally I would rather carry the extra 3 lbs if it is positioned well, spread more evenly over your body, as opposed to 3 lbs less distributed poorly.

Thanks


----------



## 03Gunner31 (Feb 28, 2008)

Sigh...

I can't make any comments here without people's feelings getting hurt.

Nothing was taken out of context.

Considering this website, with lot's of former or current Spec Op's bubbas, no one is here, especially me will ever say or add anything that will ever tarnish your service.

Me... I'm just a dumb grunt who found this site by chance almost 1.5 years ago.




All you guys here know how it is...

While in combat, if it's your time to go, its your time to go.
I do not believe that by having "more" is always better.

Me? I would rather have much more ability to fire and manuever, instead of  the "extra" weight that would hold me down... 

Marines and soldiers currently carry so much combat load, that the extra 3 pounds will actually make it harder for them to fight properly.

That's just my .02

Adding a :) and  because I come in peace.


----------



## Mac82 (Feb 28, 2008)

03Gunner31 said:


> Sigh...
> 
> I can't make any comments here without people's feelings getting hurt.
> 
> ...




Feelings not hurt at all Brother:)   I was simply clarifying the statement I made, which is why I posted the entire sentence for accuracy.

And I agree with you, 3 lbs feels like 30 at the end of a hump. 

But it is all relative, finding a balance between carrying the weight YOU need (my soldiering days are behind me) to accomplish the mission, and carrying so much that you CAN'T accomplish the mission. I am with you.

If those 3 lbs come in the form of a much improved piece of protective equipment, that spreads the load better and offers enhanced protection, then perhaps it is worth it. If it comes at a minimal overall gain, then I say it is not worth it.

I think we are on the same page. :cool:


----------



## JBS (Feb 29, 2008)

03Gunner31, you are killing me with that titty dance pic...

Every time I'm in the middle of reading a serious thread, about MOA, or CAS, or body armor, or whatever, I get down halfway into it, and BAM there's your post with tig-o-bitty's in it!


----------



## 03Gunner31 (Feb 29, 2008)

It's just in there to throw you guys off from reading any of my posts...


----------



## JBS (Feb 29, 2008)

They seem to be pulsating... at a frequency...

are they trying to tell me something?

OK, I'll stop now...:)


----------



## phridum (Mar 1, 2008)

That body armor is new? LE bomb disposal guys have been wearing it for years!


----------



## SR-25 (Jun 20, 2008)

Wow, looking at that picture makes me thank my lucky stars we have FSBE's. That looks uncomfortable as hell.


----------



## CBTech (Jun 20, 2008)

We have the MTV. They pretty much suck. I just can't get my load feeling right. I feel like I'm always fighting it.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 21, 2008)

Yeah I have the IOTV and it is the same as the MTV… It freaking sucks! Is it better then the OTV? Yes and no! Is it still a waste of money? You bet your ass!

Issues I am having:

1.	Vest is still too much weight; IOTV, MOLLE vest with load out, Camel back, assault pack with extra ammo, water, food, batteries and of course your ACH helmet.  (Total equipment weight is 93.2 lbs) With out a Ruck!
2.	Side plates restricted mobility like you would not believe, digs in sides as you attempt to bend over. 
3.	Throat protector will not stay in place, due to 1-inch square Velcro holding it in place on each end… 
4.	Quick release cable will pull out of place, on the back it slides through the comber bun straps. As it works its way out, your equipment starts to fall apart. (This has happened to me twice while on patrol)

My recommendation’s to fix the problem is to purchase Level 3A+ concealable type body armor. Something close to what some LEO uses. Something with extremely small amount of mobility change, less then 10Lbs in weight.  Something with an outer carrier, that has no MOLLE attachments. Make external pouches for front and back plates, only to be used during DA type missions.

Stop the gear queer push; stop buying all the extra pouches for the troops. All they end up doing is filling them with shit they don’t need! Go back to a simple vest; leave all the bullshit stuff to the secret squirrels.

Why we are at it, I would like to have my BDU’s/ DCU’s back! Fucking hair gel and Velcro, what happened to my BDU Army?


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Jun 21, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> My recommendation’s to fix the problem is to purchase Level 3A+ concealable type body armor. Something close to what some LEO uses. Something with extremely small amount of mobility change, less then 10Lbs in weight.  Something with an outer carrier, that has no MOLLE attachments. Make external pouches for front and back plates, only to be used during DA type missions.
> 
> Stop the gear queer push; stop buying all the extra pouches for the troops. All they end up doing is filling them with shit they don’t need! Go back to a simple vest; leave all the bullshit stuff to the secret squirrels.



Thats not a bad idea. Why the hell are they issuing these heavy ass vest (before you put the plates in) that don't stop a rifle round anyway when a lighter vest will do the same job and leave you a lot more mobile and rested. When in doubt K.I.S.S.


----------



## surgicalcric (Jun 22, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> ...My recommendation’s to fix the problem is to purchase Level 3A+ concealable type body armor. Something close to what some LEO uses. Something with extremely small amount of mobility change, less then 10Lbs in weight.  Something with an outer carrier, that has no MOLLE attachments. Make external pouches for front and back plates, only to be used during DA type missions...



JAB:

You may want to do a lil more research about ballistics, NIJ certification, IOTV armor, and the ESAPI/SAPI plates themselves.  The armor LEO utilize is quite different than that which you have in your IOTV or I have in my CIRAS; same for the MTV.

There are slick carriers out there that just hold the armor/plates and nothing more but then again we are back to the pouches on vest/ chest-rig over vest dilema and now we are back to near square one.  The releasable system was a kneejerk reaction to the number of soldiers which have drowned while wearing non-releasable armor and is more than likely here to stay. (You can fix the cable movement in your cummerbund by wrapping a rubberband around the cable on the distal end.  A hard jerk and it will come free but will prevent it from migrating up causing the release mechanism to disengage.)  

If you are wearing the soft armor there is a need to wear the plates.  Allowing Joe to decide when and when not to wear his ESAPI plates is not the answer at all.  The reason(s) for this is the same regular soldiers should not be placed in a position to decide between the wear of a plate carrier vs a full armor carrier, which I will be glad to go into if deemed necessary.  

I will conceed the wear of the throat/neck, groin, ass, and DAPs is a bit much on foot patrols, however convoy security is something totally different...

YMMV

Crip


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 22, 2008)

surgicalcric said:


> JAB:
> 
> You may want to do a lil more research about ballistics, NIJ certification, IOTV armor, and the ESAPI/SAPI plates themselves.  The armor LEO utilize is quite different than that which you have in your IOTV or I have in my CIRAS; same for the MTV.



Level 3A + will work for shrapnel and fragmentation (other then the EFP).



surgicalcric said:


> There are slick carriers out there that just hold the armor/plates and nothing more but then again we are back to the pouches on vest/ chest-rig over vest dilema and now we are back to near square one.  The releasable system was a kneejerk reaction to the number of soldiers which have drowned while wearing non-releasable armor and is more than likely here to stay. (You can fix the cable movement in your cummerbund by wrapping a rubberband around the cable on the distal end.  A hard jerk and it will come free but will prevent it from migrating up causing the release mechanism to disengage.)



 Hey thanks for the rubber band idea; I just wrapped one around the cable… As for the number of soldiers drowning, due not be able to get off equipment. Why would we not just train soldiers to practice taking off their own armor while in water? Also have soldier train to take off their buddies armor… Bigger or better equipment in place of training again… Seems to be the response for everything these days…



surgicalcric said:


> If you are wearing the soft armor there is a need to wear the plates.  Allowing Joe to decide when and when not to wear his ESAPI plates is not the answer at all.  The reason(s) for this is the same regular soldiers should not be placed in a position to decide between the wear of a plate carrier vs a full armor carrier, which I will be glad to go into if deemed necessary.



As for everything besides the (convoy security difference) we will just have to agree to disagree. The ground pounder is over loaded…


----------



## surgicalcric (Jun 22, 2008)

J.A.B. said:
			
		

> Hey thanks for the rubber band idea; I just wrapped one around the cable… As for the number of soldiers drowning, due not be able to get off equipment. Why would we not just train soldiers to practice taking off their own armor while in water? Also have soldier train to take off their buddies armor… Bigger or better equipment in place of training again… Seems to be the response for everything these days…



NIJ doesnt certify soft armor as 3A +.  LEO armor doesnt provide the same protection your IOTV armor does, period.  I have yet to see a set of BALCS cut, RAV cut, IOTV cut armor with a NIJ certification stamp on it and its because the standards are different between the NIJ and DoD.  

That said, I concur totally about training vs equipment.  However the weight of a releasable system compared to non-releasable (comparing the Eagle CIRAS as the IOTV is only mfg'd in releasable) only changes the weight by 22 ounces and is hardly noticeable with everything else a soldier wears.  BTW, the CIRAS, the IOTV, MTV, and the new BAE armor carrier (which won the new SOCOM contract) were all designed by the same person.



> As for everything besides the (convoy security difference) we will just have to agree to disagree. The ground pounder is over loaded…



I agree that the ground pounder is overloaded, which many times is a self inflicted wound.  While the plates are heavy, I will not (knowing what I know) agree that its a smart idea to ever remove them to lighten the load.  Furthermore, if there is a threat of fragmentation injury on the two-way range there is also a threat of SA fire.  The same reasons are true for the plate/soft armor equation as they were with soldiers deciding what type of armor they will wear, whether they will wear a PC or full carrier, use ICW plates or SA plates, or when/where they will wear armor at all.  Again I understand the weight issue but cutting the weight at the heart of the system isnt the answer for this problem.

We may have to agree to disagree in the end however I would like to hear a lil reason behind why you believe it would be okay to wear the soft without the plates.  Under what circumstances do you feel the need to wear your soft armor without the accompanying plates?  What are the factors that drive the decision not to wear the plates?  Where plates aren't needed in combat zones and the accompanying soft armor will suffice?  Who is authorized to make the decision to wear/not wear plates?    

If a soldier wants to cut weight then he needs to start by trimming some of the non-mission essential gear he finds himself humping around day-in and day-out.  While lighter armor which provides the same/better protection is an answer, less armor/less protection isn't.

Crip


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 23, 2008)

surgicalcric said:


> NIJ doesnt certify soft armor as 3A +.  LEO armor doesnt provide the same protection your IOTV armor does, period.  I have yet to see a set of BALCS cut, RAV cut, IOTV cut armor with a NIJ certification stamp on it and its because the standards are different between the NIJ and DoD.
> 
> That said, I concur totally about training vs equipment.  However the weight of a releasable system compared to non-releasable (comparing the Eagle CIRAS as the IOTV is only mfg'd in releasable) only changes the weight by 22 ounces and is hardly noticeable with everything else a soldier wears.  BTW, the CIRAS, the IOTV, MTV, and the new BAE armor carrier (which won the new SOCOM contract) were all designed by the same person.
> 
> ...



WOW! Okay so here I go…

First off the Infantry soldier knows how to cut the bullshit weight, the problem is now he is starting to attempt to cut mission essential equipment vs. his protective equipment. I see this now and I saw this back OIF 1 & 2. Soldiers trying to get by PCI’s PCC’s with out all of their ammo, NVG’s, food and water… Med kit is normally the first thing to get tossed in a duffel bag…

Protection from fragmentation and shrapnel is far more important to “me” than small arms fire. I base that off of, seen soldier (my soldiers) ripped a part by shrapnel. The GSW we would see were far less life threaten, except in one case were one of our Plt gunners was shot in the head. Plates or no plates, he was still dead before he hit the ground.

Soldiers have gone from learning to shoot and move in contact, to taking up defensive posters and engaging. One reason is b/c they lack the mobility to do so, due to the amount of gear carried. Soldiers taking knees when they should be finding cover, soldiers running to a doorway for cover, when they should be bounding forward on the enemy. Again a training problem.

Now why leave it up to the soldier to make the choice on plates or no plates? Because he is executing the mission… If I know I am going to patrol with a plt, and then break off in to an OP and sit tight for a night. I should have the choice between carrying more surveillance equipment, ammo, and weapons vs. extra protection (plates).

If I am going to move with a plt 20 + miles on foot over a 3 day period, conducting deny and disrupt type operations. I should have the option on how much protection I need vs. how much water and food I will need.

Equipment load out.

§	ACH, IOTV, front, back and side plates and ear pro, eye pro, dick pro, neck pro, throat pro and of course DAP’s.
§	Weapons, IR laser, Sure fire tac light and optics.
§	Basic ammo load + or – due to mission. Normally +.
§	Crew serve weapon ammo, tripod, and spare barrel divide up through out squad.
§	Frag’s and 40mm divide up through out squad.
§	Personal Med kit.
§	CLS bad, Aid and litter divide up.
§	NVG’s and extra batteries.
§	AT4 divide up through squad.
§	Radios, Dagger, maps, and extra batteries divide up through squad.
§	Protective mask and NBC equipment. (Not including protective suit)
§	Extra socks and under wear/ t-shirts.
§	Food and water divide up through squad.
§	Smoke, star clusters, pen flares and VS17.
§	IR strobes, chem lights and flash lights.
§	Sleep system if needed.
§	Cold weather gear if needed.
§	Hygiene equipment (NEEDED).

That’s not including mission specific equipment. (Breach kit, explosives, claymores, special surveillance, special radios and all the other shit they dream up)

So here is the real question, what do you want to cut? Is it the protective equipment, or the mission essential equipment? Most of what is listed is needed for Infantry platoons. We are not working in small units with supply drops and a shit load of support. Normally a resupply will be done in house, or by another platoon carrying all the same shit.

I understand keeping a soldier alive is the number one concern, but what about the mission?

What are the injury breakdowns, fucked up knees and backs vs. GSW’s and shrapnel? How many GSW’s and Shrapnel wounds were caused by lack of mobility and back and knee injuries?	

Saying if your injured, you should reclass to a different MOS is bullshit. Infantry hates the rest of the Army and would rather get out then serve as support. So now you are losing your combat seasoned Infantry. What is the right answer???  I say it is drop the extra bullshit protection that only protects the vitals and go back to shooting and moving…

If they develop a 10lbs or less soft armor, that does not limit mobility and offers the protection from GSW and shrapnel. I will gladly wear it. Until then I will bitch and call it stupidity!


----------



## AWP (Jun 23, 2008)

Without detracting from the debate going on I will say not carrying your plates here results in an Art. 15. Every AF rotation I've seen at 2 major bases has had this happen, ironically many of them were in the Security Forces career field.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 23, 2008)

Does anyone have a copy of the DoD or CENTCOM policy is, in regards to the wear of body armor and protective plates?

I searched google and AKO I have been unable to find anything. I was of the understanding that it was mandatory that it is issued to all service members. However, it was at the commander discretion of the wear of the armor.

At least that was the policy at 1st Army…


----------



## surgicalcric (Jun 23, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> ...First off the Infantry soldier knows how to cut the bullshit weight, the problem is now he is starting to attempt to cut mission essential equipment vs. his protective equipment. I see this now and I saw this back OIF 1 & 2. Soldiers trying to get by PCI’s PCC’s with out all of their ammo, NVG’s, food and water… Med kit is normally the first thing to get tossed in a duffel bag…



Maybe you are different from the guys I have witnessed and as such arent one who believes if you have it you should carry it. If this is the case then good on you for knowing better and I hope you are teaching those in your charge better as well.  

However, I have witnessed plenty of Infantry soldiers carrying entirely too much shit on their kit and I am sure it isnt only the troopers I have seen that this is a problem for.  I have talked to (and there are several people here who can back this up) plenty of guys from the 82nd Airplane Gang who carry everything (from 4 sets of batteries for their optics and NVG's to 3-4 flashlights, 12+ mags and extra ammo in their assault pack, 6+ frags, 2000 rounds linked 7.62, and the list goes on...) and the kitchen sink with them day in and day out yet want to complain about the weight of the armor.  

This is in Iraq BTW; A-stan is a totally different scenario and needs to be treated as such.



> Protection from fragmentation and shrapnel is far more important to “me” than small arms fire. I base that off of, seen soldier (my soldiers) ripped a part by shrapnel. The GSW we would see were far less life threaten, except in one case were one of our Plt gunners was shot in the head. Plates or no plates, he was still dead before he hit the ground.



I am searching for the report on the number of soldiers whose vests saved them from SA vs fragmentation or both. I will post it when found...



> Soldiers have gone from learning to shoot and move in contact, to taking up defensive posters and engaging. One reason is b/c they lack the mobility to do so, due to the amount of gear carried. Soldiers taking knees when they should be finding cover, soldiers running to a doorway for cover, when they should be bounding forward on the enemy. Again a training problem.



I totally concur on the mobility issue(s).  Speed is security in many cases...



> Now why leave it up to the soldier to make the choice on plates or no plates? Because he is executing the mission… If I know I am going to patrol with a plt, and then break off in to an OP and sit tight for a night. I should have the choice between carrying more surveillance equipment, ammo, and weapons vs. extra protection (plates).



Are you inferring the decision should be left up to the individual soldier or made at the company/plt/squad/fireteam level?  

Because a soldier is the one executing the mission doesn't necessarily mean he understands the threats, enroute to the target, on the target, or returning from the target if its a DA mission.  If its a presence patrol the threat can change with the wind and should be treated as such.  As for extra protection, the neck, groin, etc are the extra's in my mind...  The plates have been the basis for the system since its inception.



> So here is the real question, what do you want to cut? Is it the protective equipment, or the mission essential equipment? Most of what is listed is needed for Infantry platoons. We are not working in small units with supply drops and a shit load of support. Normally a resupply will be done in house, or by another platoon carrying all the same shit.



Where are you talking about needing to be resupplied?  I understand how resupply works brother so you can relax a bit on that.  Things really arent much different for you than they are for us.  We dont have a magic button we can push and get a black helo to drop whatever we need on top of us...  



> I understand keeping a soldier alive is the number one concern, but what about the mission?



The mission is number One.  The trouble is the general public doesnt understand that shit happens and people die.  It is war after all.



> What are the injury breakdowns, fucked up knees and backs vs. GSW’s and shrapnel? How many GSW’s and Shrapnel wounds were caused by lack of mobility and back and knee injuries?



I just spent some time at WRAMC and in fact talked to several Ortho guys about this very topic.  According to them there are not as many injuries to the spine as one may think due to the weight of the armor/kit...  I don't have numbers to back that up as I didnt know I would need that data howevetr I will make a couple calls and try to track down actual numbers for you if you would like to see them.



> If they develop a 10lbs or less soft armor, that does not limit mobility and offers the protection from GSW and shrapnel. I will gladly wear it. Until then I will bitch and call it stupidity!



Lighter armor is being worked on but for now we are stuck with SA/plates.  

In closing, I was looking for your thought process on this topic moreso than looking to disagree with you over the constant wear of armor...  

I do believe that in Iraq it shouldn't be an option to not wear it (SA/plates).  The rest of that crap should be left for those doing convoy operations as I stated before.  Afghanistan is a different scenario and there are times where the armor should be left on the Humvees...

my .02...

Crip


----------



## surgicalcric (Jun 23, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> Does anyone have a copy of the DoD or CENTCOM policy is, in regards to the wear of body armor and protective plates?



I have it here somewhere.  I will try to find it this afternoon...

Crip


----------



## AWP (Jun 23, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> Does anyone have a copy of the DoD or CENTCOM policy is, in regards to the wear of body armor and protective plates?



AFCENT policy at a minimum is IBA, MICH, and the issue med pack. Everything else is mission specific. That's about as much detail as I want to go into.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 23, 2008)

surgicalcric said:


> Maybe you are different from the guys I have witnessed and as such arent one who believes if you have it you should carry it. If this is the case then good on you for knowing better and I hope you are teaching those in your charge better as well.



From day one in a line unit, it’s been carry what you need… I preach it to the cherries, the more seasoned soldier, leaders do what they do. I don’t question them nor do I tell the how or what. 



surgicalcric said:


> However, I have witnessed plenty of Infantry soldiers carrying entirely too much shit on their kit and I am sure it isnt only the troopers I have seen that this is a problem for.  I have talked to (and there are several people here who can back this up) plenty of guys from the 82nd Airplane Gang who carry everything (from 4 sets of batteries for their optics and NVG's to 3-4 flashlights, 12+ mags and extra ammo in their assault pack, 6+ frags, 2000 rounds linked 7.62, and the list goes on...) and the kitchen sink with them day in and day out yet want to complain about the weight of the armor.



I have been in the NG and USAR my entire time in the Army. Along with that, keep in mind that Infantry’s mission and tactics… 2000 rounds 240B ammo is very common, so is carrying 10 + mags, with 2 or 3 extra bandoleers in your ruck/ assault pack. Extra batteries are a must! I have pulled bats out of the package and they were dead. I carry as much as I can get my hands on!!!

I have seen soldiers carrying bullshit DVD players, campfire starters, lab tops and all kinds of personal bullshit. That shit gets tossed in my PCI’s PCC’s,  but that is me…




surgicalcric said:


> Are you inferring the decision should be left up to the individual soldier or made at the company/plt/squad/fireteam level?



PL should make that choice, unless a squad level mission. then it should be the SL. 



surgicalcric said:


> Because a soldier is the one executing the mission doesn't necessarily mean he understands the threats, enroute to the target, on the target, or returning from the target if its a DA mission.  If its a presence patrol the threat can change with the wind and should be treated as such.  As for extra protection, the neck, groin, etc are the extra's in my mind...  The plates have been the basis for the system since its inception.



I understand what you mean and agree, but it’s the leadership’s job to explain all aspects of the mission (In, while and out) rock drills and walk troughs all that good stuff! Again still the lowest level should be allowed the choice to down and up grade protective equipment as needed.



surgicalcric said:


> Where are you talking about needing to be resupplied?  I understand how resupply works brother so you can relax a bit on that.  Things really arent much different for you than they are for us.  We dont have a magic button we can push and get a black helo to drop whatever we need on top of us...



I was not trying to insult you. When conducting large-scale operations of any kind, any type of resupply is needed. Such as those 82nd troopers who burned that 2000 rounds up, while killing Mahdi Army. (I had to resupply a plt of 82nd for ammo in 2004) I have also been resupplyed on many operations, that change from quick and fast, back before dinner chow, to OH SHIT we are going to be here a while. Damn we should have brought more 240B ammo!



surgicalcric said:


> The mission is number One.  The trouble is the general public doesnt understand that shit happens and people die.  It is war after all.



I could not agree more, just wish we had some upper level commanders who did!



surgicalcric said:


> I just spent some time at WRAMC and in fact talked to several Ortho guys about this very topic.  According to them there are not as many injuries to the spine as one may think due to the weight of the armor/kit...  I don't have numbers to back that up as I didnt know I would need that data howevetr I will make a couple calls and try to track down actual numbers for you if you would like to see them.



Most Infantry refuse to go to the TMC or any other type of treatment, for fear of being reclassed or receiving a med board…



surgicalcric said:


> In closing, I was looking for your thought process on this topic moreso than looking to disagree with you over the constant wear of armor...



I know brother, no worries. I am looking at it from a different view point. I just feel safer being able to move, over having front, back and side plates… It’s just my opinion!



surgicalcric said:


> I do believe that in Iraq it shouldn't be an option to not wear it (SA/plates).  The rest of that crap should be left for those doing convoy operations as I stated before.  Afghanistan is a different scenario and there are times where the armor should be left on the Humvees...



Convoys security is a different game and I fully understand that now  As for wearing body armor on all missions in Iraq, I could not disagree more. Mainly b/c my experiences in the past. Then again it was the past!

It’s good stuff bro, I look forward to your input. I normally end up rethinking and adjusting my fire as needed… However, you can't convince me on all of them :)


----------



## Snowbird (Jun 23, 2008)

surgicalcric said:


> We dont have a magic button we can push and get a black helo to drop whatever we need on top of us...
> Crip



:eek::eek::eek:


You lost your "EASY" button!?!?  I'll fill out the article 15 (for losing mission essential equipment) later, but you need to swing by the 4 so you can get a new one!


----------



## surgicalcric (Jun 23, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> From day one in a line unit, it’s been carry what you need… I preach it to the cherries, the more seasoned soldier, leaders do what they do. I don’t question them nor do I tell the how or what.



Experienced soldiers, as well as NCO's/Officers, are not immune to over packing or packing for Armageddon and as such they sometimes need a dose of common sense handed out...  ;)  



> I have been in the NG and USAR my entire time in the Army. Along with that, keep in mind that Infantry’s mission and tactics… 2000 rounds 240B ammo is very common, so is carrying 10 + mags, with 2 or 3 extra bandoleers in your ruck/ assault pack. Extra batteries are a must! I have pulled bats out of the package and they were dead. I carry as much as I can get my hands on!!!



I am definitely not opposed to carrying extras however there is a fine line between carrying a reasonable amount of supplies for a mission and being a bit ridiculous.  I cannot imagine having the need to hump 2000 rounds 7.62 link, or 5.56 for that matter, on my person...  2000 split up through a squad would be a different story.  The same holds true for batteries.  It is one thing to carry what you need plus a couple but to hump 3 days worth of batteries for a 1 day mission is a bit much.  I can "what if" with the best of them but everything you add detracts from something else and in many cases its mobility.



> Most Infantry refuse to go to the TMC or any other type of treatment, for fear of being reclassed or receiving a med board…



Stupidity should be painful.  

Back/knee/hip pain isnt in and of itself cause to have a soldier reclassed or MEB'd out of the Army.  Many times the treatment is simple and non-invasive at the onset of the problem but when soldiers choose to ignore the early symptoms treatment options degrade and the soldier ends up in a position where reclass or MEB are the only options.  From a medical providers standpoint, if a soldier is having pain in an intensity sufficient that he/she feels the need to not wear armor because of it then it needs to be addressed or they need to STFU about it.  I would prefer the former.  

There will also be a point that said soldier will no longer be an asset to his unit because of said problems and could very well cost someone else their life.  If one of your soldiers is having issues you need to get them looked at.

All that said, ignoring physical problems is what we (Infantry, SF, Rangers) do often times because we want to stay with the guys we consider family instead of staying in the "rear with the gear" until healed. 

I truly understand both sides of this issue.  

Crip


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Jun 23, 2008)

I would have to agree with Crip about who decides what protection is worn and not worn. I don't think it should be a one size fits all solution but I certainly don't think it should be the individual who decides, at least not in a line company. 

To be honest, there are some soldiers and Marines out there that are not to bright, along with those that are too hard for their own good ("I don't need that shit I'm bullet proof"), and those that just haven't been in long enough to know any better.  

Now when you start talking about a specialized unit then things change a bit. The individual here is *normally* better trained and of higher rank, has an in depth look of the mission and all aspects of it, knows how best to complete his portion of the mission and usually has the God given smarts to make a good decision. That’s not always the case, and its not always the right decision that is made, but on the whole it usually leans more to the good than the bad.

As far as the IBA in general goes I think that the excess shit (groin, neck, throat, shoulder, and ass protection) need to disappear from the standard kit. Yes there are times when it is needed but it shouldn't be worn everyday all day as the norm. I would also say that these large side plates that are almost the size of the front and back plates need to take a back seat. Yes it protects you from the side, and yes that will most likely be a fatal shot, but like I said before when you go to war people are going to die.  The smaller 4” X 6” plates only weigh a little over a pound each and can still significantly increase your protection over front and back plates alone. Not saying they should be used all the time, but if you have to have them why not go with something that will still offer good range of motion and less weight. 

The bottom line is that loading the troops down with armor plates and hoping that the bullet doesn’t find a gap in their armor is not the solution. You know the old saying history repeats itself? If you all will recall their was a period when knights and mounted calvary began to wear huge bulky armor because it was thought that it would give them great protection and keep them alive longer in battle. The unfortunate reality is that while it worked alright on horse back as soon as they fell off, which was made easier thanks to the heavy armor, they had difficulty getting up, and even if they managed to get up they were to slow to fight. I see the same trend developing now. I honestly wish that they would just go back to the basic design of a ballistic vest with front and back plates. When you got to go into a barricaded objective, then you can throw on the damn EOD suit, but for everyday sector patrols drop all the excess crap and leave it in the rear. :2c:


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 23, 2008)

I will agree that people that do not seek medical help for problems, are in the wrong. However I have done it many times. 

I will also concede on the individual (pvt Joe snuffy) should not be allowed too decided on his level of protection. However I still believe the SL/ PL should be able to say, hey Joe you can drop the plates if you want. Of course based on mission and threat level.

It’s like this, you can wrap your self in bubble wrap and I will show up in PT’s. We will square off and see who ends up hurt the worst :) 

This can be the deciding factor of my ground forces wearing body armor, when I take over as ground commander of Operation Mars Freedom!:confused:


----------



## car (Jun 23, 2008)

Interesting back n forth - intercourse.

Can you guys get a room?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 23, 2008)

car said:


> Interesting back n forth - intercourse.
> 
> Can you guys get a room?



Only if you are going to video tape for us old man???:eek:


ummmm I mean SGM! ( as I look for a place to hide):doh:


----------

