Troops dispute study on Body Armour.

The current body armor does, indeed, have Soldiers surviving otherwise deadly injuries (medical advancements applied to the battlefield also contributes to this). The downside to that is that we have Soldiers coming back really torn up and in some instances, unable to provide for themselves or live a normal life because they've survived the life-threatening injuries but are missing several limbs or pieces of their faces, etc.

I suppose that's the nature of war, though. I'd rather my husband be alive and horribly mangled than dead from lack of proper armor, although I don't know that he feels the same way.

During my husband's deployment last year he was not exposed to combat, but he WAS issued his body armor...not everyone that deployed out of Schofield had it. He's a medic and is now attached to an infantry unit (2-27 Wolfhounds), with a likely deployment to Iraq this summer. Ease of movement is going to be important to him, but I still will feel more comfortable knowing he has the body armor on, even if it strains him some.

The liquid armor sounds promising, and especially since it will cover the extremities.

The issue of BETTER may be a matter of opinion but do not forget many of our troops were sent into Iraq with NO BODY ARMOR or ARMORED VEHICLES. That is because Bush had to go to a war that DID NOT NEED to be fought! There was no danger of the United States being attached by Iraq!

There was no danger of the United States being attached by Iraq!

While I agree with that, I don't think it matters whether it was a necessary war or not. Our military needs to be constantly ready and well-equipped in war and in peace time. Our Soldiers need to be set to respond to any threat, anywhere, at any time. Their equipment will never be perfect, but I am really impressed with the new liquid armor the Army scientists and engineers are working on. Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

That is because Bush had to go to a war that DID NOT NEED to be fought!

I agree with that statement Col. Gene but I'll tell you - the thread Drmiler posted a scant fifteen days ago personally addressing you was luck. Pure luck. I had very much considered posting a thread addressing you at about the same time - it wouldn't have been nearly as mild as Drmiler's.

You need to change your approach. Learn to temper your rhetoric, even...

I and most of the other JU regulars (who continually go back and forth in our, um...rather spirited debates) have realized the need to treat each other as more then an anonymous poster designed to be ranted at for our convenience.

If you have a message, a mission, an agenda, kindly keep in mind that on the other end of the line exists another user; just as human and feverishly tapping away their important opinion. Sometimes you'll get a 'def. brn!' or a 'drmiler oneliner' or even the occasional 'Take the Baker-Shoot-Your-Point-All-To-Hell-Street' but remember that only temporary residence here at JU allows one to shoot one's mouth off regardless of fact and consideration for other bloggers. To stick around one must be a little more...substantive - humane, even.

You don't want that old 'send the Col Gene bot after him' moniker all your stay here do you?

Or will you pass from us soon?

We used to call body armor "dog tag protectors" and wondered how many more troops would be killed because of the reduction in mobility than protected by the armor.

When I read death reports and see causes like, "IED flipped over Armored Personnel Carrier" I realize that, for most the troops killed in Iraq all the body armor and "up armoring" of HMMWVs in the world wouldn't have protected them.

Yes, the military should issue body armor because a flak jacket still protects vital organs from shrapnel and blast debris. However, when the bacteria is using enough C4 in an IED to render the armor on an Armored Personnel Carrier useless... we see that the "controversy" over up armoring and body armor is more rhetoric than realistic.

The liquid protection sounds like a great advance in the technology. Keep up the good work Researchers!!!

Yes, the military should issue body armor because a flak jacket still protects vital organs from shrapnel and blast debris.

To my knowledge the only ones during WWII to have flak jackets were naval anti-aircraft gunners. No one in the infantry ever thought about such a luxury, which it was and scarce in those days. But with today's technology, it was inexcusable to send troops into combat without the armor, however ineffectual at times.

Any ground pounder (Infantry) solider will tell you that he wants to be fast, mobile and able to move quickly. While body armour is great and has saved many lives (one of my good friends included) it is very heavy, hot and restricts movement. MOST solider I have talked too, about 10, 8 of the 10 reject wearing more armour as it would be just too much. What's your point? Needless to say infantry has to travel light, but few would discard their helmets, and many would not want More armor but just enough, which thousands were denied. A flak jacket is not exactly cumbersome knight's suit of armor.

Ease of movement is going to be important to him, but I still will feel more comfortable knowing he has the body armor on, even if it strains him some. The liquid armor sounds promising, and especially since it will cover the extremities.

I concur, Texaii.

That is because Bush had to go to a war that DID NOT NEED to be fought! I agree with that statement Col. Gene but I'll tell you - the thread Drmiler posted a scant fifteen days ago personally addressing you was luck. Pure luck. I had very much considered posting a thread addressing you at about the same time - it wouldn't have been nearly as mild as Drmiler's. You need to change your approach. Learn to temper your rhetoric, even... I and most of the other JU regulars (who continually go back and forth in our, um...rather spirited debates) have realized the need to treat each other as more then an anonymous poster designed to be ranted at for our convenience. If you have a message, a mission, an agenda, kindly keep in mind that on the other end of the line exists another user; just as human and feverishly tapping away their important opinion. Sometimes you'll get a 'def. brn!' or a 'drmiler oneliner' or even the occasional 'Take the Baker-Shoot-Your-Point-All-To-Hell-Street' but remember that only temporary residence here at JU allows one to shoot one's mouth off regardless of fact and consideration for other bloggers. To stick around one must be a little more...substantive - humane, even. You don't want that old 'send the Col Gene bot after him' moniker all your stay here do you? Or will you pass from us soon?

Well spoken deference. I will leave you with the words I left for steven.

You know, really I don't mind people coming down on GW. I "like" him and I did vote for him and I "do" stick up for him however....that does not mean I agree with him 100%. Some of the stuff he's done, I do not agree with. That being said, it's one thing to disagree with him. It's something else entirely to take every perceived ill and try to pin it on GW "every" time you open your mouth.

The issue of BETTER may be a matter of opinion but do not forget many of our troops were sent into Iraq with NO BODY ARMOR or ARMORED VEHICLES. That is because Bush had to go to a war that DID NOT NEED to be fought! There was no danger of the United States being attached by Iraq!

I "told" you col that I was not the only one getting "tired" of your incessant Bush bashing!

Need to clarify. A "flak jacket" was a type of body protection that was used up until the new ceramic plated armour came out. It was NOT designed to stop bullets. While semi-bullet proof armour was available while I was in the service (yes even in the 80's) to civilian law enforcement, we did not have bullet proof body armour in the military we had the old VN/WWII Flak jacket, which would not stop a bullet.

And when any of you claim that soliders were deployed without armour, I agree some where but I will be checking to make sure, but I am fairly sure that combat units went in with armour (or at least the majority). Most non-combat units did not at first have them. Now almost every single, even non-combat soilder has them. We could always place each solider in a titanium protective casing like the A-10 has for its pilots, but it would be heck to move around in. As TW can tell you, a combat ready unit has never passed an inspection.

I did a little research and found that all dismounted troops were issued the new armour inthe beginning of the war. The rest began to recieve it AFTER they started encountering the IEDs as a major problem. As with anything in the military, the money moves slow, just like the coffee. Here is a quote from an article that explains it pretty well. "Soldiers will not patrol without the armor — if they can get it. But as of now, there is not enough to go around. Going into the war in Iraq, the Army decided to outfit only dismounted combat soldiers with the plated vests, which cost about $1,500 each. But when Iraqi insurgents began ambushing convoys and killing clerks as well as combat troops, controversy erupted." at http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000971.asp?cp1=1 and you may want to read this article from Infantry Magazine, which of course pays close attention to this issue: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IAV/is_4_93/ai_n6362158

As usual ask the guys using the stuff for what to do. All Soldiers in Iraq will also be issued another 14 pieces of new Army equipment from the Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI). Additional RFI equipment is provided to brigade combat teams based on their missions. RFI is a system set up by PEO. Thanks to the development of RFI, Soldiers no longer have to purchase or face long delays before receiving new equipment. Charles Rash, acting deputy of PEO Soldier, said the turnaround time has also improved, to provide Soldiers with state-of-the-art weapons, clothing and equipment before they leave for operational deployment.

RFI is fielding a total of 49 state-of-the-art equipment types in the categories of force protection/mobility, lethality, soldier mission essential equipment, and individual weapons/optics. Some of the RFI equipment issued to all Soldiers includes:

* The Advanced Combat Helmet, or ACH, has replaced the old Kevlar helmet. The ACH is 3.5 pounds lighter then the old model and is cushioned on the inside, which sits more comfortably on a Soldier's head. It also has a different suspension system inside which allows a Soldier to fight more effectively when wearing body armor.

* The Infantry Combat Boot Type II has replaced the older model boots, and are designed to be much more comfortable and durable. The boots are available only through RFI and do not need to be polished.

* Wiley X Goggles are a popular item among Soldiers according to officials.

New weapons in the testing stage include a Remote Operated Weapon Station to be installed inside the HMMWVs. These new weapon stations will allow Soldiers to fire at targets without exposing themselves. With help from those who were serving in Afghanistan, the RFI program was able to get input from Soldiers based on what improvements were needed on equipment and what equipment should be issued to each Soldier for an increased combative effectiveness, said Rash.

When RFI found that their Wiley X goggles were not lasting as long as expected, Soldiers suggested issuing them a hard case instead of soft cases to store the goggles in.

Col. of Little KNowledge, you need to stop trying to convince people with your hate remarks and try to convince them with factual statements to back them up. I think most have just stopped listening to you until you come up wit some type of viable information.

Hey Texas Wahine! Do you know who Major General A. Bell is?? He is the Commanding General of the Wolfhounds I believe. Check on that and let me know. He was a friend of mine and was down here to visit last month.

What's your point? Needless to say infantry has to travel light, but few would discard their helmets, and many would not want More armor but just enough, which thousands were denied. A flak jacket is not exactly cumbersome knight's suit of armor.

Actually, disgarding helmets and flak jackets is VERY common among ground pounders, especially among the Rangers, SF and other special ops.

Note to the anal and ignorant: "Flak Jacket" is a common nickname given any and all forms of "body armor". Yes, technically it is no longer issued, but then again "dog tags" never existed and "hummers" have never been used in the military.

Love the new helmet and the boots, haven't tried the goggles. I especially like not shining boots.

Body armor blows, but not so much as an extra orifice in the thoracic cavity I would think.

I'd gladly wear it in Iraq, but could we please, please stop making soldiers wear it on gate guard in Korea? What's the point? I'd say in the states too, but at least around here, AKAL has taken over.

As to other "new" army gear. I like the M-4 carbines. No stopping power, but neither is the M-16, and damned but they're light. I'm highly skeptical about the ACUs, I mean frickin' velcro?

And the "new" pts suck in the summer, but rock in the winter. The fabric doesn't breathe, so they're very warm.

And that's my take. Of course, I go back in the army again on wednesday, so if I find out more, I'll let ya know.

drmiler

I tell it like it is. It is you and other JoeUsers that assign the term "Bush Bashing" to the facts I report.

The STF looks like science fiction!  But I guess most of the weapons today looked like that just 50 years ago.

I tell it like it is. It is you and other JoeUsers that assign the term "Bush Bashing" to the facts I report.

You tell it like the NYT and moveon.org tells it to you. Your "facts" are constantly proven to be either false, or taken way out of context.

drmiler I tell it like it is. It is you and other JoeUsers that assign the term "Bush Bashing" to the facts I report.

Then I would suggest that you talk to "deference" who usually goes "against" Bush in general and who has said basically the same thing.

That is because Bush had to go to a war that DID NOT NEED to be fought! I agree with that statement Col. Gene but I'll tell you - the thread Drmiler posted a scant fifteen days ago personally addressing you was luck. Pure luck. I had very much considered posting a thread addressing you at about the same time - it wouldn't have been nearly as mild as Drmiler's. You need to change your approach. Learn to temper your rhetoric, even... I and most of the other JU regulars (who continually go back and forth in our, um...rather spirited debates) have realized the need to treat each other as more then an anonymous poster designed to be ranted at for our convenience. If you have a message, a mission, an agenda, kindly keep in mind that on the other end of the line exists another user; just as human and feverishly tapping away their important opinion. Sometimes you'll get a 'def. brn!' or a 'drmiler oneliner' or even the occasional 'Take the Baker-Shoot-Your-Point-All-To-Hell-Street' but remember that only temporary residence here at JU allows one to shoot one's mouth off regardless of fact and consideration for other bloggers. To stick around one must be a little more...substantive - humane, even. You don't want that old 'send the Col Gene bot after him' moniker all your stay here do you? Or will you pass from us soon?

Or stevendedalus

#16 by stevendedalus Saturday, January 07, 2006 I'll guarantee that the col isn't poking fun. He was serious. A given, he definitely needs to lighten up and get off the kick of Bush-bashing.

Get a clue will ya? If you can't afford one....I'll purchase one for you.

Most of my facts come from U S Government agencies. I have also used articles from other publications as well. The data I use is correct but the Bushies call it Bush Bashing. A good example is what has happened to the Annual Deficit and the National debt since Jan 2001. 1000 of 1000 people would most likely say the past 5 years have been very bad for our future. That is an example of what JoeUsers would call Bush bashing. I guess that is how you must view the impact of the tax and spending policies we have been following! Reflecting that 3 million people illegally crossed our southern border would also be considered Bush bashing. The 1 million additional Americans that lost healthcare during the past 5 years would also be Bush bashing to JoeUsers. The slaughter in Iraq and the deaths since the last election is most definitely Bush Bashing. The fact we are more dependent of foreign oil today is absolutely Bush bashing.

I think I count as one of the 1000, and I think I am better off over the last 5 years. I make more money, I feel the laws have improved for my protection (I live in Fla) and I feel better that our military is fighting the terrorist in Iraq and not the streets of New York. SO I guess your wrong on that count. Anyone else?

The southern border IS a problem and I agree with you on that. SO your point there? No one said we agree 100% with all of the Administrations policies or doings. You are the only one against ALL of them. Thats what makes the difference. ANd no offense, we are more dependent on foreign oil because some people in our government will not allow drilling in certain areas that should be opened up for oil drilling. ANWR, Florida Gulf and other areas.

Anything else? I pay less taxes, make more money and feel safer at home from the terrorist. How about anyone else of the 1000?? Want to chime in?

Most of my facts come from U S Government agencies

No, most of your facts come from you ass.  As has been PROVED.  Doc Miler is trying to be nice.  I would suggest you listen to him for a change.  If that is even remotely possible any longer for your hate atrophied brain.

Most of my facts come from U S Government agencies. I have also used articles from other publications as well. The data I use is correct but the Bushies call it Bush Bashing. A good example is what has happened to the Annual Deficit and the National debt since Jan 2001. 1000 of 1000 people would most likely say the past 5 years have been very bad for our future. That is an example of what JoeUsers would call Bush bashing. I guess that is how you must view the impact of the tax and spending policies we have been following! Reflecting that 3 million people illegally crossed our southern border would also be considered Bush bashing. The 1 million additional Americans that lost healthcare during the past 5 years would also be Bush bashing to JoeUsers. The slaughter in Iraq and the deaths since the last election is most definitely Bush Bashing. The fact we are more dependent of foreign oil today is absolutely Bush bashing.

We don't care "where" you get your facts from. It's "really" not important. The problem is that "you" find NOTHING good coming from GW. All we EVER hear from you is "Bush, baaaaaad"! Grow up!
Yes we would call this Bush bashing. And do you know why? As if you even care. We would call it bashing because there is NO proof, only opinion! Not even a poll was sited. That would be a first for you. Please grow a brain! You know something? I REALLY hated "dabe"! But you are faaaaaar worse than she ever was. At least her rhetoric had some thinking behind it. Yours on the other hand rarely does! As long as it's bad for Bush, you'll print it. Which is probably why your book didn't have a stellar performance!

Once again Colon Gangrene takes an article that has nothing to do with Prs. Bush, and makes it a "Bush Bash".

The point, unless I missed it, was what troops in Iraq have to say about the body armor. Their opinion seems to matter to some of us, but apparently the opinions are as meaningless to the mighty Colon as the troops themselves.

I, for one, thank you ShadowWar, for bringing these quotes to our attention. I know it isn't the opinion of every troop in country, but it's nice to hear from them once in awhile.

I feel better that our military is fighting the terrorist in Iraq and not the streets of New York.

Oh, PLEASE! Let's not get carried away.

Oh, PLEASE! Let's not get carried away.

Yeah, becuase terrorists would never hit New York. :~D

Reply By: stevendedalusPosted: Tuesday, January 10, 2006I feel better that our military is fighting the terrorist in Iraq and not the streets of New York.Oh, PLEASE! Let's not get carried away.

Oh ya thats right that, New York would never be attacked. Your right. No bombs in the parking garage of the Wolrd Trade Center, No airplanes flown into them, no attacks on American Soil would ever happen. And what shows you lack any type of solid discussion point is that you chose that one line out of the entire post to respond too?? Please you'll have to do better. Its a fact, we have killed more terrorist and and thier ilk in Iraq than died on 9/11 attacking us here. Its a fact we have prevented the following:
1. The West Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot to attack targets on the West Coast of the United States using hijacked airplanes. The plotters included at least one major operational planner involved in planning the events of 9/11.
2. The East Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2003 the U.S. and a partner disrupted a plot to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States using hijacked commercial airplanes.
3. The Jose Padilla Plot: In May 2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the plotters, Jose Padilla, also discussed the possibility of using a "dirty bomb" in the U.S.

Tell the 3000 plus that died that New York could never be attacked. We have already had 1 failed suicide bomber attempt in the US. Hey I know lets invite them to come here and go to your neighborhood and use IED's and VBIED's. then lets see who changes thier song.