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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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 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

  • 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

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

    Today's Hottest Topics
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
    • BREAK-BREAK: Units to Get New Camo Revealed
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    Recent Comments
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
      They are going to have to look at the whole...
      Wembley
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      Just look at this " picture " for a moment. The...
      Zandor
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      I know LOSAT seemed awesome but wasn't it cancelled? I...
      JimboJones
    • BAE to Market Mantis UAV to North America
      Yes you're quite right, I get to witness...
      JimboJones
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      I'm disappointed. When are they going to make clothes...
      Nadnerbus
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      Part II : * USMC attempts to make a single seat (no...
      freefallingbomb
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      Part I : I think we're not the only ones on the...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part III : Guided missiles will also be programmed to...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part II : If a tank shoots at another tank at only 5...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part I : To the poster "Will" : You wrote:...
      freefallingbomb
    Recent Articles
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • BAE to Market Mantis UAV to North America
    • Pinnacle’s New Armor
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
    • Northrop Invests Own Money In Fire Scout
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Super Cavitation and the Truth
    • Mantis Begins Search For Prey
    Recent Hot Topics
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • The Osprey has Landed
    • UPDATED: Details on Army's New Afghanistan Duds
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Iraq Cyber Attack and the DigiSEALs
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • (Proof) The Osprey Has Landed
    • Grim Wanat Footage
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
  • 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 | © 2009 Military Advantage