Lack of body armor... I thought it was Kerry's fault. hmmmm

Anything and Everything political, express your view, but play nice
Post Reply
DMC
Post Office
Posts: 4576
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:11

Lack of body armor... I thought it was Kerry's fault. hmmmm

Post by DMC »

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/07/inter ... armor.html

Many Missteps Tied to Delay in Armor for Troops in Iraq
By MICHAEL MOSS

Published: March 7, 2005


The war in Iraq was hardly a month old in April 2003 when an Army general in charge of equipping soldiers with protective gear threw the brakes on buying bulletproof vests.

The general, Richard A. Cody, who led a Pentagon group called the Army Strategic Planning Board, had been told by supply chiefs that the combat troops already had all the armor they needed, according to Army officials and records from the board's meetings. Some 50,000 other American soldiers, who were not on the front lines of battle, could do without.

In the following weeks, as Iraqi snipers and suicide bombers stepped up deadly attacks, often directed at those very soldiers behind the front lines, General Cody realized the Army's mistake and did an about-face. On May 15, 2003, he ordered the budget office to buy all the bulletproof vests it could, according to an Army report. He would give one to every soldier, "regardless of duty position."

But the delays were only beginning. The initial misstep, as well as other previously undisclosed problems, show that the Pentagon's difficulties in shielding troops and their vehicles with armor have been far more extensive and intractable than officials have acknowledged, according to government officials, contractors and Defense Department records.

In the case of body armor, the Pentagon gave a contract for thousands of the ceramic plate inserts that make the vests bulletproof to a former Army researcher who had never mass-produced anything. He struggled for a year, then gave up entirely. At the same time, in shipping plates from other companies, the Army's equipment manager effectively reduced the armor's priority to the status of socks, a confidential report by the Army's inspector general shows. Some 10,000 plates were lost along the way, and the rest arrived late.

In all, with additional paperwork delays, the Defense Department took 167 days just to start getting the bulletproof vests to soldiers in Iraq once General Cody placed the order. But for thousands of soldiers, it took weeks and even months more, records show, at a time when the Iraqi insurgency was intensifying and American casualties were mounting.

By contrast, when the United States' allies in Iraq also realized they needed more bulletproof vests, they bypassed the Pentagon and ordered directly from a manufacturer in Michigan. They began getting armor in just 12 days.

The issue of whether American troops were adequately protected received wide attention in December, when an Army National Guard member complained to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that troops were scrounging for armor to fortify their Humvees and other vehicles. The Pentagon has maintained that it has moved steadfastly to protect all its troops in Iraq.

But an examination of the issues involving the protective shielding and other critical equipment shows how a supply problem seen as an emergency on the ground in Iraq was treated as a routine procurement matter back in Washington.

While all soldiers eventually received plates for their vests, the Army is still scrambling to find new materials to better protect the 10,000 Humvees in Iraq that were not built for combat conditions. They are re-enforced by simple steel plates that cannot withstand the increasingly potent explosives being used by the insurgents, according to contractors who are working to develop more sophisticated armor for the Army.

Army generals say a more effective answer to the threat of explosives may lie in electronic instruments that have proven successful in blocking the detonation of homemade bombs, called improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.'s. They have caused about a quarter of the more than 1,500 American deaths in Iraq, including those of two National Guard members from New York City just last week.

Such an electronic countermeasure was used at the start of the war to shield Iraqi oil fields from possible sabotage. But some members of Congress and security experts say shortsighted planning and piecemeal buying on the part of the Army has resulted in too few of the devices being used to protect the troops.
TrailRider
Blue Chatterbox
Posts: 184
Joined: Feb 28th, '05, 13:53
Location: Hammondville, NY

Post by TrailRider »

It's so sad that the bushbags were so eager for war that they totally forgot to prepare. Total incompetance. Glad I'm in a Blue State.
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 19565
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

TrailRider wrote:It's so sad that the bushbags were so eager for war that they totally forgot to prepare. Total incompetance. Glad I'm in a Blue State.
I'm not sure how anyone would know that it is the men NOT on the front lines that were going to be killed at random.

Had I been commander and chief...I would assume the people being killed most would be those on the front lines.

Obviously today I would think otherwise...but prior to this war I wouldn't think of armoring the men NOT on the front lines anymore than we had in the past

E
User avatar
Pedro
Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
Posts: 3937
Joined: Nov 4th, '04, 22:35
Location: Juarez

Post by Pedro »

TrailRider wrote:It's so sad that the bushbags were so eager for war that they totally forgot to prepare. Total incompetance. Glad I'm in a Blue State.
Body armor was never a standard issue item to all soldiers. As an infantry platoon leader i never even saw body armor. I was in the army long before bush was elected. Its not a red state, blue state issue.
DMC
Post Office
Posts: 4576
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:11

Post by DMC »

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:I'm not sure how anyone would know that it is the men NOT on the front lines that were going to be killed at random.
Had I been commander and chief...I would assume the people being killed most would be those on the front lines.
GWB is telling us he fighting terrorism in Iraq... It was part of his campaign redoric...

What do terrorists do??? They blow unsuspecting people up....
Whats happening in Iraq??? They are blowing unsuspecting people up...

If he truely went to Iraq to get terrorists and create a democracy - he should've known..

Oh - wait - he went there to find WMDs....
Nevermind... The terrorism thing is a save face measure...
DMC
Post Office
Posts: 4576
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:11

Post by DMC »

Pedro wrote:Body armor was never a standard issue item to all soldiers.
They should now... And forever...
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 19565
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

DMC wrote:Oh - wait - he went there to find WMDs....
Nevermind... The terrorism thing is a save face measure...
I'll give you that.

Although it's not really a save face type thing...there ARE terrorists in Iraq we need to defeat....we just don't know if they were in Iraq prior to the war

E
DMC
Post Office
Posts: 4576
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:11

Post by DMC »

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
DMC wrote:Oh - wait - he went there to find WMDs....
Nevermind... The terrorism thing is a save face measure...
I'll give you that.

Although it's not really a save face type thing...there ARE terrorists in Iraq we need to defeat....we just don't know if they were in Iraq prior to the war

E
Most of them hove come to Iraq from other contries to kill us...

IMHO - we had no business taking our war on terror to those poor peoples country... JMHO....
BigKahuna13
Site Admin
Posts: 6488
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:10
Location: Under the Boardwalk
Contact:

Post by BigKahuna13 »

Pedro wrote:
TrailRider wrote:It's so sad that the bushbags were so eager for war that they totally forgot to prepare. Total incompetance. Glad I'm in a Blue State.
Body armor was never a standard issue item to all soldiers. As an infantry platoon leader i never even saw body armor. I was in the army long before bush was elected. Its not a red state, blue state issue.
Will body armor even stop a rifle round?
What is not possible is not to choose. ~Jean-Paul Sartre


Image
Dr. NO
Signature Poster
Posts: 21422
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 05:52
Location: In the Baah!

Post by Dr. NO »

BigKahuna13 wrote:
Pedro wrote:
TrailRider wrote:It's so sad that the bushbags were so eager for war that they totally forgot to prepare. Total incompetance. Glad I'm in a Blue State.
Body armor was never a standard issue item to all soldiers. As an infantry platoon leader i never even saw body armor. I was in the army long before bush was elected. Its not a red state, blue state issue.
Will body armor even stop a rifle round?
Depends upon the range and the round. My .45 ACP at close range will usually penetrate body armor. Also, don't forget military uses full metal jacket, so penetration is more likely if the enemy also uses them. The longer the range, the less likely you will go through due to loss of power.
MUST STOP POSTING ! MUST STOP POSTING !

Shut up and Ski!

Why's Everybody Always Pickin on Me?
User avatar
Pedro
Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
Posts: 3937
Joined: Nov 4th, '04, 22:35
Location: Juarez

Post by Pedro »

BigKahuna13 wrote:
Pedro wrote:
TrailRider wrote:It's so sad that the bushbags were so eager for war that they totally forgot to prepare. Total incompetance. Glad I'm in a Blue State.
Body armor was never a standard issue item to all soldiers. As an infantry platoon leader i never even saw body armor. I was in the army long before bush was elected. Its not a red state, blue state issue.
Will body armor even stop a rifle round?
I don't really know, but i think its going to depend on the armor you are talking about.

The stuff that the army is calling Body armor isn't the kevlar vests used by law enforcemnt, This shits heavy duty, its basically a vest with a very heavy steel or ceramic plate in the front, and a very heavy plate in the back. My roomate was in the 10th Special Forces Group and brought his armor home one day. I put it on and I almost Fell over.(and that was minus the load bearing vest that you cary all of your ammo and water in. This stuff was primarly designed for the dudes kicking in the doors and doing the urban assaults. I imagine it might be able to stop a 5.56 MM round, but a 7.62 might be pushing it, although the amount of hardward that they put into the vest, I dont see why it wouldn't be designed to.
BigKahuna13
Site Admin
Posts: 6488
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:10
Location: Under the Boardwalk
Contact:

Post by BigKahuna13 »

Pedro wrote:
BigKahuna13 wrote:
Pedro wrote:
TrailRider wrote:It's so sad that the bushbags were so eager for war that they totally forgot to prepare. Total incompetance. Glad I'm in a Blue State.
Body armor was never a standard issue item to all soldiers. As an infantry platoon leader i never even saw body armor. I was in the army long before bush was elected. Its not a red state, blue state issue.
Will body armor even stop a rifle round?
I don't really know, but i think its going to depend on the armor you are talking about.

The stuff that the army is calling Body armor isn't the kevlar vests used by law enforcemnt, This shits heavy duty, its basically a vest with a very heavy steel or ceramic plate in the front, and a very heavy plate in the back. My roomate was in the 10th Special Forces Group and brought his armor home one day. I put it on and I almost Fell over.(and that was minus the load bearing vest that you cary all of your ammo and water in. This stuff was primarly designed for the dudes kicking in the doors and doing the urban assaults. I imagine it might be able to stop a 5.56 MM round, but a 7.62 might be pushing it, although the amount of hardward that they put into the vest, I dont see why it wouldn't be designed to.
My brother's retired NYPD and he's told me the kevlar vests they wore
would stop handgun rounds (some of the bigger magnums were maybes)
but wouldn't stop a centerfire long gun round.

Given the weight of the thing, is it even practical for a typical infantryman to wear it on a regular basis (especially in the desert)?
What is not possible is not to choose. ~Jean-Paul Sartre


Image
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 19565
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

DMC wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
DMC wrote:Oh - wait - he went there to find WMDs....
Nevermind... The terrorism thing is a save face measure...
I'll give you that.

Although it's not really a save face type thing...there ARE terrorists in Iraq we need to defeat....we just don't know if they were in Iraq prior to the war

E
Most of them hove come to Iraq from other contries to kill us...

IMHO - we had no business taking our war on terror to those poor peoples country... JMHO....
I hate to be blatently ignorant, but I'd rather have our men and women fighting terrorism in Iraq than on Broad Street in NYC

E
User avatar
Pedro
Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
Posts: 3937
Joined: Nov 4th, '04, 22:35
Location: Juarez

Post by Pedro »

BigKahuna13 wrote:
Given the weight of the thing, is it even practical for a typical infantryman to wear it on a regular basis (especially in the desert)?
you probably wouldn't want to wear it on a long ground movement, but if your gaurding a checkpoint or somthing Id have it on. Ive worn the big bulky kevlar vests in the desert, and at 115 degrees it really sucks. throw on the gas mask and protective gear and now you are really suckin.
Post Reply