DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Armor » New Plates for Army Armor

New Plates for Army Armor

Well, well. Just a few days back, a Marine report came to light blaming some troops’ deaths on the lack of plates in their body armor — particularly side plates that protect the warfighters’ flanks. Now, the New York Times reports, the Army has decided to send to start sending those side plates to its soldiers in Iraq.
dap_side.gif

The Marine Corps, which commissioned the study in December 2004, began buying side plates in September for its 26,000 troops in Iraq. Army procurement officials said they began studying a similar move last summer after receiving requests from troops in Iraq, but were hampered by the need to supply a much larger force of 160,000 individuals.
The Army had begun supplying small quantities of side plates to soldiers much earlier in the war through its Rapid Equipping Force. Armor Works of Tempe, Ariz., which is making the plates for the marines, said it shipped 250 sets in November 2003.
Another manufacturer, the Excera Materials Group of Columbus, Ohio, said that since late 2004 it had shipped 1,000 sets of side plates to Special Forces personnel, the Air Force and individual units that used their own procurement money to buy the armor.

According to the Armed Forces Press Service, the side panels “weigh 3 pounds [and] will be made of the same material as the small-arms protective inserts,” or SAPI plates, which protect the front of soldiers’ torsos.

Other shoulder and side protection adds 5 pounds. Wearing all pieces of the Interceptor armor could add about 27 pounds to soldiers’ burden.
By comparison, the “flak vest” of Vietnam came in at about 25 pounds, and the original flak vest worn by airmen during World War II weighed around 40 pounds, Air Force Museum officials said.

Soldiers and marines differ sharply on whether this extra armor is a good idea or not in today’s war. Check out the debate raging in the comments section here.
UPDATE 3:02 PM: Sgt. Eric Daniel, who has written extensively for Military​.com and returned from Iraq in October, writes:

Something folks don’t take into consideration is the tradeoffs associated with wearing additional armor. Just before I rotated out, we were getting issued the DAPS (deltoid auxillary something-or-other…) and the “space marine” shoulder pads. While these offered additional protection to the side of the chest and shoulders (from small arms fire and small fragments) they were so cumbersome to wear that you were effectively imobile while wearing them. In fact, it was so bulky that I could not put it on and then climb through the turrets on the LMTVs and HUMVEES; I had to put the armor on top of the vehicle, get in the turret, and then suit up. Furthermore, while my small arms protection may have gone up, I was a dead man when it came to vehicle roll overs or surviving an IED/VBIED blast. This is just with the DAPS/ shoulder armor, mind you. Now they’re talking about equipping gunners with entire ensembles of kevlar armor (complete with portable AC systems). That’s just insane.
The bottom line is, in my opinion, we are going overboard with armor; just like you can’t armor a tank every where (there’s 2.5 feet of armor on the front of a tank, but only 1 inch on top) you can’t armor a person everywhere. Everything has trade offs. Yes the SAPI plates could be bigger, but it really isn’t cost effective to make 40 different sizes and it’s impossible to tailor them, so we run with what we have.
We have gotten to the point that we’re wearing so much of it now that we are combat ineffective (we’re too heavy and too slow to chase the bad guys so really all the armor does is allow them to shoot at us with impunity. If the military wants to make our lives safer, rather than give us more armor to wear they ought to untie our hands and let us take the fight to the bad guys, by getting rid of the restrictive rules of engagement.

Share |

January 12th, 2006 | Armor | 302872 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/01/12/new-plates-for-army-armor/New+Plates+for+Army+Armor2006-01-12+12%3A53%3A40jason You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Rapid Fire 01/11/06 | Laser Weapons “Almost Ready?” Not! » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. CB says:
    January 12, 2006 at 8:15 pm

    The argument over the amount and type of armour being fielded is getting beyond a joke. Ask your average soldier whether or not he wants to take his chances with an addition several kilos around his torso. It’s an exponential increase in fatigue levels and operational duration we are now talking about.
    As someone who has served in both Africa and SE Asia wearing both flak jacket style protection and ceramic plates, neither afforded me adequate protection, however, wearing of more would have led to a reduction in my ability to do my primary mission. Being protected and heat exhausted is kind of useless.

    Reply
  2. Campbell says:
    January 12, 2006 at 8:36 pm

    statistics are skewed. marine report ONLY addresses fatalities from upper torso armour protected areas. I note that personnel, if indeed they want more protection/less mobility, lean towards protecting femoral artery, groin.
    no statistics have been put forth that number fatalities that have been prevented.
    in any case, it is IED (why cant people simply say bombs/booby traps/ambush?) that are causing major casualties.
    solution is NOT armour. It is in greater situational awareness, ie: surveillance. Inexpensive, individual unit, portable RPVs’ are available, ready. simple fixes like camera phones mounted on tethered balloons would be of immense help.
    alas, these are not “sexy” enough, nor media freindly enough to get put into place.
    and more and more die without reason.
    PS: Re: “taking fight to enemy”.….ask ANY modern military officer what his FIRST, PRIMARY duty is.…and he will reply “the safety of my men”.
    That is why we lose. You do not succeed in war by protecting your own, you succeed by destroying the opposing force. Patton said it, it is true. Period.
    I am Viet Nam era Marine, my son is career Army officer. I despair at what he learns, and parrots from our military.

    Reply
  3. gregory says:
    January 17, 2006 at 1:02 am

    Apparently the US military is ignoring a completley revolutionary armour called “dragon skin”, that can take AK hits at muzzle velocity ( if im not mistaken ). Lasts longer than a plate carrier, more flexible and lighter. costs alot more too.

    Reply
  4. Susan says:
    March 26, 2006 at 12:41 am

    You might want to read this article especially the part that says “Struck once in a part of his upper torso not protected by armor“
    http://​www​.post​-gazette​.com/​p​g​/​0​6​0​8​5​/​6​7​6​8​0​5​.​stm
    Debate all you want. I have a son in Iraq. BTW he NOW does have the side armor — after Sgt. McCaulley died. Too bad they didn’t supply it before.

    Reply
  5. SPC TH says:
    August 19, 2007 at 3:39 pm

    And another Vietnam Vet thinks what he did matters in Iraq.
    CB the armor you wore sucked , we all know it .
    But today in 2007, armor has come a long way.But because you rather do your primary mission , which was probably cooking , you see me wanting more armor as weakness.
    I’ve got news for you shithead , I have no porblem humping all the armor you want to put on me and I will stil hump my ammo and everything else I need .
    You Vietnam Vets are getting boring.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • South of the Border Mayhem
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
    • Rise of the Cyber Arms Dealers
    • Author Steven Pressfield Blogs Afghan Visit With Gen. Mattis
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
    • JSF Costs Jump 50 Percent
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
    • More Vehicle Digital Camouflage
    • Chinese Digi-Camo
    Recent Comments
    • Rise of the Cyber Arms Dealers
      "FACT: The only difference between a cyber weapon and a...
      Ari
    • South of the Border Mayhem
      "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have...
      Jim
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      I think Chinese BM missile may contain a...
      roland
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
      Why the heck is it taking us 25+years to...
      Curtis
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      The best example is the Battle of Britain...
      Benjamin
    • South of the Border Mayhem
      Legalize and highly regulate the illicit drug market. Just...
      Nadnerbus
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      Someone just has to sell or get rid those...
      needless
    • South of the Border Mayhem
      I don't get it. Illegal use of drugs is the main reason...
      needless
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      If it makes a differance or not, we should...
      pickett
    • South of the Border Mayhem
      Legalize illegal narcotics, period. No matter what type of...
      @7thwave
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage