US Army is Insane!!!!

It seems that in it's infinite wisdom, the US military will no longer allow soligers to wear "Non-Military" issue body armor.

IF, the big IF, the Army provided body armor to all it troops that needed it, I could see this being the case, some might buy low cost, ineffective body armor.

The real case is many of our brave boys and girls are going on in a war zone without ANY body armor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look, some protection is certainly better than none.

If the leaders in the pentagon, washington and in the field feel this is the right move lets dump them in the Iraq RED zone With Out body armor, or better yet, lets put their children in RED zone without body armor, I thing the rule would change instantly.

Linky: articles.news.aol.com...





Mod Edit: CAP title

[edit on 31-3-2006 by kinglizard]

Yes seems silly in the least , i wouds imagine it has something to do with insurance or liability, Ill bet that they could say to the widow of a dead GI no sorry he was wearing none GI armour its his own fault so were not giving you the full pension, I agree its ridiculous and reminds me of the British army soldiers having to buy there own boots and other kit as the standard issue aint up to the job .

God I think that in Kosovo I heard that they had to use mobile phones to communicate because of crappy radios , scandolous

This is as insane as the fact that they charge them for wear and tear on uniforms, supplies, etc when they are shipping out of Iraq.

Sadly our government is one big pile of red tape. These soldiers will find far more than this if they try and use the VA system later.

One myth (I don't have a link as of yet but have heard first hand from a serving soldier) is that many of the dead UK soldiers who could have been saved by the blasts actually chose not to wear armour and actually gave it to other soldiers or left it back at base because often it makes mobility harder and the soldier hotter in the temperatures out there. Although UK troops may have shortages I think the media over emphasises the 'lack' of equipment when really many chose to go without.

Just an idea for now.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Knights]

If the armor was there, given to all in the war zone and some choose not to werar it-thats one thing.

The military not providing it is a very different animal!

BTW, I don't know English law, but i would think a court case would be won by the fact the military didn't provide supplies to it's troops.

Knights, I really hope what you said is not the cause of so many US troop deaths.

mod edit: removed quote from previous post.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by sanctum]

I have no idea from an American viewpoint, i'm sure i was once told something similar how armour given to US troops was often not good enough or lightweight enough, thus some US troops bought some snake or lizard armour but got told they weren't allowed to wear it. (Not 100% about this.. if anyone knows better then please post!)

As for the UK, I know that supplies such as boots and general yet necessery equipment wasn't supplied but i'm sure the media picked up on the lack of armour story and claimed troops weren't supplied any when infact they were. (I need to research this further.. will try and get some valid information instead of my dribble lol!).

But just image patrolling round the middle of Iraq, carrying guns, ammo, bergen and having tight armour. The weight and constriction of all this equipment must make it hot and resticting.

One case which i have been told about is a tank crew member was hit in the neck with some shrapnel, the papers picked up on the fact he wasn't wearing neck armour.. when in a tank who wants neck armour all the time.

(Again I would just like to state that none of my points above hold any serious weight as I have no sources in which to use as of yet. I still might be wrong, I am mainly writing from word of mouth.)

To the best of my knowledge (I admit that my evidence is anecdotal and incomplete) US troops do not have everything they should. With an army as large as ours, logistics SNAFUs are a part of life unfortunately.

That's not to say that everyone who gets it is using it either.

In my humble opinion, the Army's policy on forbidding personal gear has been badly implemented and it's PR has been even worse.

They need to do two things.
1. Enforce the use of issued gear, to the exclusion of anything which would preclude the use thereof.
2. Allow non-obstructive personal gear.

I came within a month or so, give or take, of deployment to Iraq before I hurt my back. I never did get a solid answer on whether or not the Corps would allow me to take personal gear, but I had a bit of a shopping list in mind considering the state of the gear I usually ended up with in the Corps. High on my list were a bigger canteen, my dad's glock, and a pocket translator.
And if I'd gotten there, not been issued armor, and seen one too many guys go down who shouldn't have- you bet your life I'd have written home for my folks to spend as much as my bank account might contain on some armor- I don't care how close to or far from government specs.

On the other hand, if the Corps had given me armor, I'd have had a few choice words for anyone who suggested that I not wear it.

Heat Exhaustion... Sucking Chest Wound... hmmm. Which would you choose?
Last I checked, refilling a canteen is a heck of a lot easier than stuffing your guts back into your abdomen.

Look the US army is good at invading a hostile country like Iraq but when it comes to policing the country afterwards forget about it. The US army is not trained to police but only to invade.

'Winning of hearts and minds'.. pff what a joke.. When Saddam was knocked from power and the war was 'over', this peace keeping was then established even though the war still continued (and continues) in an invisible form (invisible enemy). Instead of creating peace, I think the Iraqis should take control and defend their own lands, fair enough training can should be given but our soldiers are sitting ducks. When patrolling an enemy could walk past them in the street and they would have no idea.
All the armour in the world probably wouldn't help much. Those of you who have seen videas of the Juba sniper in action know our troops don't particulary stand a chance.. Those who haven't (and I am in no way promoting this) If you do, please prepare yourself as it really isn't pleasent.

Most of the trouble in iraq is due to foreign fighters from other muslim countries around Iraq. There are however Iraqis who are fighting aganist the coalition but they are too bisy fighting there own becuse of the devide between Sunny Muslims and Shiite muslims. The best lot to sort out this mess now is the Iraqis them selfs they are the ones who actually are sorting out this mess at the moment.

Since I've operated in an insurgency environment for almost 10 years, I can hazard my two bits for whatever they're worth.

To begin with, it is an undisputable fact that body armor or bullet proof vests/jackets are absolutely essential in a counter insurgency environment.

But, as usual, the bright boys of the Pentagon have goofed up again, which needless to say, has become a regular feature.

The problems are:

1. Lack of foresight and planning resulting in haphazard procurement at the highest levels of the concerned directorates.
2. Issued body armor being too heavy, resulting in lack of mobility.
3. Manufacturing glitches resulting in avoidable delays.
4. Manufacturers/designers unable to meet the minimum General Staff Qualitative Requirements.
5. To an extent, acceptance of sub standard material due to corrupt practices, resulting in premature disposal due to unfair wear and tear and thus creating critical shortages.

Is it any surprise then, that body armor is being bought by US soldiers, ex the local market?

Those responsible for this state of affairs, and sitting in their ivory towers in the Pentagon, need to be forced to move their asses and go to Iraq to get some first hand experience of what it is like to be in a 'war' zone without adequate protective gear.





[edit on 3-4-2006 by mikesingh]

thats sad, im agaisnt this war, but our soldiers should not have to go through stuff like this.

its also been documented that ALOT of the vehicles are not up to date as far are armor goes, a friend of mine who was out there told me that they were getting armor off of other vehicles that had been blown up and welding it to their their vehicile as they came across anything that was useable cause the army just isnt supplying them with the armor they need. alot of the trucks are old recycled trucks from desert storm. not that all the trucks are like that but form what i hear a majority are with very few exceptions

ill try to find the documentry i found on it awhile back after my friend told me about it. if i do ill post it

Christ! And to think the US government is appropriating $80 billion for the war in Iraq!
What're they spending this money on?

There continue to be shortages in vehicles, body armor, night vision devices, and even goddamn tyres for Humvees!!
So where the heck is the money going?

Probably lining a lot of pockets, at the expense of the soldiers fighting this dirty war!

This money is going into defence companies and other companies helping the coalition repair and improve IRAQ. But these companies are over pricing the equipment they sell to the coalition forces and most of this equipment was taken from the requisitioned from Iraq in the invasion. The only winner from the invasion is western companies selling equipment to the coalition forces at over priced prices.

They all have body armor. No one is walking around without a vest on. Maybe not the best armor possible, but they ALL have armor.