Comments on: New Plates for Army Armor

By: SPC TH

SPC TH — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:39:42 +0000

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.

By: Susan

Susan — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 05:41:56 +0000

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/pg/06085/676805.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.

By: gregory

gregory — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:02:40 +0000

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.

By: Campbell

Campbell — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 01:36:05 +0000

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.

By: CB

CB — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 01:15:17 +0000

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.