look who's not supporting the troops AGAIN

[Magyar]

So another report from some kooky left wing cindy loving propaganda machine?


NOPE The Pentagon's report that up to 80% of fatal turso wounds would have been prevented had the proper body armor was made available to our troops.!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060107/ts_nm/iraq_usa_armor_dc

BUT NO - the problem is NOT that our fearless leader started a wrong war of his own chosing, didn't listen to the carrier soldiers advice and won't supply those troops with proper equipment so he could funnel money to his
partners company.

NO the problem is those touchy, feely liberals who are concerned with the constitution.

[Mephisto]

Yeah, and those Cindy-loving leftists have probably trumped up all the data that points to the inadequacies of the troops body armor.

Thanks for the article, I thought it was pretty pertinent, especially considering Bush accused John Kerry of being guilty of exactly THIS (not providing adequate body armor for soldiers or vehicles) during the elections.

I especially liked this part:

"Army spokesman Paul Boyce said that U.S. forces have the best body armor in the world and it is "saving lives every day."

Aren't these the same people who told us the war is "going well," and that they have plenty of troops and equipment to do this job? No reason not to believe them though, is there?

[Manny]

Of course, what the study does not count is the number of people not shot at all because of the mobility advantage of not having the extra plates. It's an ongoing debate within the military. Which side is right? I don't know. Either do you. What I do know is that the President, or even the Secretary of Defense, does not pour over catalogues choosing body armor. Those specs come from within the military. Blaming this administration (or a prior one) for an alleged failure in this area is just looking for rocks to through and is not serious criticism.

[Garrette]

I find this kind of comment very narrow.

Undoubtedly, "better armor" would save more lives. But there is no Warfighting Wal-Mart that has stocked on its shelves two items, one labeled "Pretty Good Armor" and another labeled "Damned Excellent Armor."

The fact is that the armor in place is saving lives:
http://http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=1556540

The fact that other armor could save more is no more valid a criticism, in and of itself, than the fact that you could spend your time more constructively by volunteering somewhere would be a valid criticism of your argument here.

And you'll note that the originally linked article does not criticize the quality of the army per se, but the fact that there are not side and shoulder plates.

For this to be valid, you would need to assume a few things:

1. Such armor was a viable option for the military.

2. The decision-makers ignored that option without considering its advantages.

3. The life-saving advantages are not offset by the increased mobility restriction such additional armor would bring.

Regarding #1, I don't know if there was a proven model of body armor with side and shoulder plates in time for it to be purchased for Iraq, but I doubt it. Despite Hollywood depictions otherwise, the military does very little cutting-edge stuff when it comes to front line troops, and with good reason. The battlefield is an excellent testing ground but with too high a cost for failure.

Regarding #2, you'd need to provide some evidence.

Regarding #3, people ignore this a lot. The body armor as it is now is already restrictive of movement, heavy, and adds to the retention of body heat. These are not minor considerations. Adding side armor to fully enclose the torso would not only add more weight to an already over-burdened soldier but would further restrict movement and, perhaps most significantly, fully enclose the torse, significantly increasing body heat retention.

So what the original article is actually saying is not that side and shoulder plates would save more lives, but that side and shoulder plates would have saved the lives of some soldiers already killed, assuming the plates themselves had not caused the soldier to become a casualty in a different way.

[Johnny Pixels]

There's always going to be more ways in which to protect troops, but there has to be limits drawn somewhere. You could armour every square inch of a soldiers body which would reduce injuries, but there are practicalities to be taken into account.

New technology always appears to be the answer to everything, but then traditional or alternative methods are often over looked. For instance British troops on patrol after capturing Basra reverted to their berets instead of helmets, as it was less threatening to the locals. Instead of just applying more armour to protect themselves from insurgents, they changed their approach.

Obviously this isn't an answer applicable to US marines who are directly in the line of fire, but I think people need to recognise that piling on more armour is not always the answer.

[Mephisto]

So what the original article is actually saying is not that side and shoulder plates would save more lives, but that side and shoulder plates would have saved the lives of some soldiers already killed, . . .

Yeah, and if you count those who die by dysentery, sand flea bites, motor vehicle accidents, helicopter accidents or by drinking tainted water (purified by Halliburton) superior body armor hardly helps anyone at all! After all, who would want their son or daughter impeded by the weight of extra armor?

I wonder how much better body armor would help save the lives of those killed if they weren't already dead - guess we'll never know. ;)

[Garrette]

Mephisto, though I haven't debated with you much, I have read you quite a bit. While I usually disagree, I also usually find you to have some substance.

That is not the case here. Can you clarify your point so as to lead me to understand how this last post is more than just irrational reaction?

[Mephisto]

. . . but I think people need to recognise that piling on more armour is not always the answer.

Certainly this is a concern for the grunt who has to shoulder the extra weight, but it shouldn't be a problem for the grossly underarmored vehicles. Why aren't they better armored? How many soldiers have we lost to IEDs obliterating the interior of their vehicles compared to those who died by gunshot?

I would be very interested in hearing from the troops themselves whether or not they'd be willing to carry extra armor.

[Garrette]

I'm a troop, Mephisto. I spent a year in Baghdad and went on many convoys. In some circumstances I was glad of the armor and would have welcomed more. In others, I hated it. In others, I was conflicted because there were trade-offs between mobility, heat, and protection.

And there is an excuse for underarmored vehicles, at least in the short run, and possibly in the long run.

The M1s are armored enough, as are the Bradley's. We've yet to see with the new Strykers.

You're probably referring, then, to the HMMWVs which were not envisioned in the role they are being used in. Hence, the up-armor package. But it is not possible to armor a transport vehicle to the point of having it impervious while retaining its initial purpose.

Like most things, combat is trade-offs, not certainties.

[Mephisto]

Mephisto, though I haven't debated with you much, I have read you quite a bit. While I usually disagree, I also usually find you to have some substance.

That is not the case here. Can you clarify your point so as to lead me to understand how this last post is more than just irrational reaction?

Thank you, Garrette - I'm pleased to make your acquaintance. :)

I'm saying that our military (and our government) should look into ALL cases involving the deaths of our soldiers. Certainly there are more ways to die on a battlefield than in combat, BUT combat is a reality of soldiering and I believe that every idea regarding the protection of our soldiers is worthy of testing. If there is better body armor to be had, I would like to see our government pay the extra expense to outfit the soldiers in an experimental group (that sees actual combat) to see if more lives are saved or lost because of the equipment.

If a helicopter goes down killing everyone on board and the crash is attributed to an equipment malfunction, certainly the military would do something about it quickly, right? If a weapon has a reputation for jamming under certain conditions, the military would try to find the fix before any more soldiers died, right? Why is it different with a soldier's personal protective gear?

In Vietnam we had flak vests which weren't meant to stop small arms fire and barely managed to stop shrapnel. They were heavy, hot and often ineffective as many GIs tossed them aside. The body armor available to our troops now is quite a bit lighter, but if it doesn't do the job, it's just an expensive (and useless) fashion statement.

BTW, my comment wasn't leveled particularly at you, but at anyone who can justify NOT trying to find a more effective armor for the troops. SUPPORT THE TROOPS has been a catch phrase used by this adminstration whenever they're getting ready to accuse someone of being unpatriotic, but when they're not listening to data that points to the inadequacies of our soldier's equipment AND cutting they're back on veteran's benefits who is actually guilty of NOT supporting the troops?

[Garrette]

Ah, got it. Thanks.

I agree completely with the sentiment of that post, Mephisto. I have qualms about the practicality of it, though.

But you may be interested in this site about Natick Labs in Natick Massachusetts. I've been there. They are the lead for this kind of thing (among others): http://www.ssc.army.mil/search/index.htm

You can search it for armor. Here's one page with some promising news:

http://http://www.natick.army.mil/about/pao/pubs/warrior/98/june/weight.htm

[Garrette]

Reference the Supporting/Not Supporting Our Troops thing, I try not to get involved in that argument. It is too politicized and twisted and abused by both sides.

Without going into detail, my personal stance on the whole Iraq thing involves these aspects:

1. I'm not a big Bush fan at all
2. I supported the invasion at the time and still do
3. I think there have been lots of very grave and inexcusable mistakes in the handling of it
4. Support the Troops is more than just spouting the slogan
5. It is indeed very possible to Support the Troops while not supporting the mission.

[Mephisto]

I'm a troop, Mephisto. I spent a year in Baghdad and went on many convoys. In some circumstances I was glad of the armor and would have welcomed more. In others, I hated it. In others, I was conflicted because there were trade-offs between mobility, heat, and protection.

Well my hat is off to you, young fella. While I've never been in favor of this war, I've ALWAYS supported our soldiers, airmen and sailors. Soldiering is an often thankless job and one that often puts soldiers inbetween two rabid factions that usually forget the guys on the ground. I think the word of the troops should carry a LOT more weight than it has in the past, and I think that you would be a much better judge when the armor would be beneficial to you. My point is, we (as a country) should make sure that you have the best personal armor available should you be thrown into a situation that you would welcome it.

The M1s are armored enough, as are the Bradley's. We've yet to see with the new Strykers.

I helped write the SOPs for the Thermal Weapon Sight in the M1 and supported testing for the M1 Abrams for several years as a Defense Contractor technical editor.

You're probably referring, then, to the HMMWVs which were not envisioned in the role they are being used in. Hence, the up-armor package. But it is not possible to armor a transport vehicle to the point of having it impervious while retaining its initial purpose.

I agree, but the fact that HUMVEES are being used in a manner not envisioned should be the cue that we need more tanks or APCs.

Like most things, combat is trade-offs, not certainties.


I agree completely, Garrette and that is definitely one of the scariest things about living/working in a combat zone as a grunt. Better armor won't provide the certainty of survival in a firefight, but better body armor might provide the edge that an individual soldier needs to survive. I can't see arguing against anything our individual soldiers might need to survive.

[Mephisto]

Reference the Supporting/Not Supporting Our Troops thing, I try not to get involved in that argument. It is too politicized and twisted and abused by both sides.

Without going into detail, my personal stance on the whole Iraq thing involves these aspects:

1. I'm not a big Bush fan at all
2. I supported the invasion at the time and still do
3. I think there have been lots of very grave and inexcusable mistakes in the handling of it
4. Support the Troops is more than just spouting the slogan
5. It is indeed very possible to Support the Troops while not supporting the mission.

We see eye to eye on the most important things, Garrette and for that I'm glad. If you're still active and still overseas, I'd like to wish you the best of luck. As a matter of fact, I'd like to wish everyone around you the best of luck and I sincerely hope that you all come out of this physically, psychologically and emotionally unscathed, because (as you no doubt already know) physical wounds aren't the only ones that can change your life drastically!

[Garrette]

Well my hat is off to you, young fella.It's been a long while since I've been called young, but thanks. And also for your Vietnam service.

While I've never been in favor of this war, I've ALWAYS supported our soldiers, airmen and sailors.Appreciated. I understand the difference and despise those on the right who say you can't hold this position.

My point is, we (as a country) should make sure that you have the best personal armor available should you be thrown into a situation that you would welcome it.Again, I agree with the sentiment and not the specifics. I want the country to make sure I have the best survival odds (as far as is knowable given the uncertainty surrounding combat) while still putting the mission first.

I helped write the SOPs for the Thermal Weapon Sight in the M1 and supported testing for the M1 Abrams for several years as a Defense Contractor technical editor.Extremely cool. Spend any time at Knox? I live an hour from there (lived a few years a lot closer, though I was never stationed there). I tried once or twice to break into the Defense Contracting field and never succeeded.

I agree, but the fact that HUMVEES are being used in a manner not envisioned should be the cue that we need more tanks or APCs. Again, I agree with the sentiment but not the specific. It's a cue for a review. To say that more tanks and apcs are the answer is too simplistic.

We see eye to eye on the most important things, Garrette and for that I'm glad.It appears so. At least on this subject, so I'm glad for that, too.

If you're still active and still overseas, I'd like to wish you the best of luck. As a matter of fact, I'd like to wish everyone around you the best of luck and I sincerely hope that you all come out of this physically, psychologically and emotionally unscathed, because (as you no doubt already know) physical wounds aren't the only ones that can change your life drastically!Appreciated, but not necessary for me. I am now only a drilling Reservist and will probably only be that for a short while longer; it is unlikely I will be activated/deployed again. I know many who are going again (most for the second time), though, so I'll pass your thoughts to them.

[Mycroft]

I'm saying that our military (and our government) should look into ALL cases involving the deaths of our soldiers.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Better body armor could have prevented or limited about 80 percent of fatal torso wounds suffered by Marines killed in
Iraq, a report by U.S. military medical experts obtained on Friday said.

Bolding mine.

Mephisto, this information comes from the military, and is a part of the process by which our military decides how best to equip our troops.

The process of doing studies and making recomendations is one we want to encourage, and is an important part of supporting our troops. These studies will find areas where we can improve, but to turn it around and bash our military for not knowing the right answer all along doesn't make sense.

The test here is what is done with this information. If it leads to changes, then it's for the good. If it's ignored, then you can bash the government for not supporting the troops.

[DavidJames]

Reference the Supporting/Not Supporting Our Troops thing, I try not to get involved in that argument. It is too politicized and twisted and abused by both sides.

Without going into detail, my personal stance on the whole Iraq thing involves these aspects:

1. I'm not a big Bush fan at all
2. I supported the invasion at the time and still do
3. I think there have been lots of very grave and inexcusable mistakes in the handling of it
4. Support the Troops is more than just spouting the slogan
5. It is indeed very possible to Support the Troops while not supporting the mission.My father was wounded in WWII and maybe because of that I've always had deep respect and appreciation for those that served in the armed forces. Regardless whether by draft or volunteering.

I marched on Washington in the early 70's to protest the U.S. intervention in Vietnam but maintained that respect for those involved in the conflict. I was not alone with those, seemingly to some, mutually exclusive feelings.

The draft ended the year I become eligible. I and those who I marched with, knew many who were involved in the conflict. We, almost unanimously, were against the war, but strongly supported the brave serviceman and women who participated in it. Certainly there were expectations who did not show the same respect. But from my experience, they were a tiny, although sometimes very visible, minority.

I'm disappointed with those who feel one cannot support those that serve while disapproving of the missions on which they may be sent. Our freedom to dissent lives on through the blood of those that fight to defend it. Eliminating that dissent, regardless if by law or by insinuation of ones patriotism, does great disservice to those who fight and die to defend it.

I commend your service and your recognition of our right to protest our governments decisions.

[Mark]

My father was wounded in WWII and maybe because of that I've always had deep respect and appreciation for those that served in the armed forces. Regardless whether by draft or volunteering.

I marched on Washington in the early 70's to protest the U.S. intervention in Vietnam but maintained that respect for those involved in the conflict. I was not alone with those, seemingly to some, mutually exclusive feelings.

The draft ended the year I become eligible. I and those who I marched with, knew many who were involved in the conflict. We, almost unanimously, were against the war, but strongly supported the brave serviceman and women who participated in it. Certainly there were expectations who did not show the same respect. But from my experience, they were a tiny, although sometimes very visible, minority.

I'm disappointed with those who feel one cannot support those that serve while disapproving of the missions on which they may be sent. Our freedom to dissent lives on through the blood of those that fight to defend it. Eliminating that dissent, regardless if by law or by insinuation of ones patriotism, does great disservice to those who fight and die to defend it.

I commend your service and your recognition of our right to protest our governments decisions.


Well said. And I shared your experiences (except my father was not in WWII, although he was in the military; he was born in 1904).

[drkitten]

The test here is what is done with this information. If it leads to changes, then it's for the good. If it's ignored, then you can bash the government for not supporting the troops.

I should point out that this is not a dichotomy. It is perfectly possibly that the information is neither ignored, but does not lead to change -- if a sober, considered, rational analysis of the costs and benefits of the new armor suggests that adding the additional plates will actually make things worse for the soldiers, then that's still an acceptable outcome.

[Garrette]

Thanks, drkitten. That's what I've been trying to say.

And my earlier link to the Natick Labs would interest most readers of this thread, I think.

[Mephisto]

Mephisto, this information comes from the military, and is a part of the process by which our military decides how best to equip our troops.

Thanks, Mycroft.

I'm pretty familiar with the military testing process which may, or may not taint my opinions

Eighty percent seems like an awful lot of soldiers to me, and a figure that should raise some concern in the government somewhere. My experience is that the military will request something and the government will debate whether or not it's feasible, too expensive or whatever. Meantime, the troops in the field suffer.

No one is in a better position to support the troops than the government and if an inordinant amount of soliders are dying because of inadequate equipment I feel they should toss aside the committes and do something about it.

[Mephisto]

Appreciated, but not necessary for me. I am now only a drilling Reservist and will probably only be that for a short while longer; it is unlikely I will be activated/deployed again. I know many who are going again (most for the second time), though, so I'll pass your thoughts to them.

Well I'm glad that you're stateside again.

I hope it's unlikely that you'll be deployed again, but these days who can tell?

I've never been to Ft. Knox, but worked with testing aspects of the M1 (in the SW desert). I'm sure you'll have a much better chance at finding work with a defense contractor now that you're going to be an EX-combat veteran (as though your service will ever fade from memory). I'll keep my fingers crossed for you and your family (I noticed you have kids). Still, keep some of that good luck I wished you nearby, being a decorated veteran doesn't carry that much weight in the real world as we're led to believe.

[ImaginalDisc]

Completely aside from the surrounding political issues, shouldn't the fact that the soldiers in Iraq are facing an increased number of roadside bombs, ambushes, and are being sent to respond to attacks against security forces, as backup, mean that their vehicles should favor heavier armor over heigher manueverability? Classicaly, there''s a balance that needs to be struck between those two needs, but in this case, it seems that the balance needs to be further towards armor.

[Johnny Pixels]

Certainly this is a concern for the grunt who has to shoulder the extra weight, but it shouldn't be a problem for the grossly underarmored vehicles. Why aren't they better armored? How many soldiers have we lost to IEDs obliterating the interior of their vehicles compared to those who died by gunshot?

I would be very interested in hearing from the troops themselves whether or not they'd be willing to carry extra armor.

I'd agree with this, vehicles should be used as they were designed. Humvees weren't designed for patrol where they'd come under fire like they are in Iraq.

Maybe body armour should be personal choice. If a soldier wants the extra protection then let him have it, if he feels restricted then he could carry less armour, but the full amount should be available to anyone who wants it. Cost shouldn't be an object in this area, if it saves lives it's worth it.

[a_unique_person]

There's always going to be more ways in which to protect troops, but there has to be limits drawn somewhere. You could armour every square inch of a soldiers body which would reduce injuries, but there are practicalities to be taken into account.

New technology always appears to be the answer to everything, but then traditional or alternative methods are often over looked. For instance British troops on patrol after capturing Basra reverted to their berets instead of helmets, as it was less threatening to the locals. Instead of just applying more armour to protect themselves from insurgents, they changed their approach.

Obviously this isn't an answer applicable to US marines who are directly in the line of fire, but I think people need to recognise that piling on more armour is not always the answer.

As technology improves, does this mean the return of the Knight?

[Manny]

As technology improves, does this mean the return of the Knight?
Almost! Happily, today's warriors get the benefit of better materials than the pig iron and leather coverlets of old. But yes, US and other troops are increasingly going to war with advanced cover of increasing portions of their bodies to protect against at least small arms fire, shrapnel and similar.

[davefoc]

I believe that the Bush presidency is probably the worst of my lifetime. Still not everything that his administration gets dumped on for is justified.

This one strikes me as particularly unfair. Not only, as has been pointed out, is there the age old militarty issue of strength of armour versus mobility, there is this fact of life of life: There is almost always a better way of doing something than the way it is being done and unless one expects to wait for the results of infinite testing and infinite development what is deployed is going to be inferior to something that wasn't deployed.

If the Bush administration is to be nailed on this one legitimately, somebody needs to find political or financial motivation in the decision process put there by the Bush administration or maybe another Mike Brown (ex FEMA director) lurking around.



You're probably referring, then, to the HMMWVs which were not envisioned in the role they are being used in. Hence, the up-armor package. But it is not possible to armor a transport vehicle to the point of having it impervious while retaining its initial purpose.


Maybe, this hits on one of the main issues of the occupation. What exactly is the US military trying to accomplish with soldiers driving around Iraq? Why nearly three years after the beginning of the war are US soldiers still actively involved in what appears to be a civil war? At this point I could believe that American soldiers might be helping to patrol a border or perhaps protecting the seat of a fledgling Iraqi government. But maybe the problem here from the start is that there was a view that instead of letting the Iraqi officials understand that the US and Britain would be there for a limited time and for a limited mission the coalition pushed the idea that the coalition would solve all problems. This was an impossibly large mission and the time for letting the Iraqi government understand that the days of Americans riding around the country in humvees playing Roy Rogers (except that in the case of Iraq the bullets don't magically zip around this Roy Rogers) is about to end.

[Garrette]

Maybe body armour should be personal choice. If a soldier wants the extra protection then let him have it, if he feels restricted then he could carry less armour, but the full amount should be available to anyone who wants it.Well, the choice should be placed closer to the front than it typically is, at least when I was there, but the individual soldier is too close. The choice needs to be an order coming from the commander, one step above the ranking soldier on the actual mission. The mission commander can make a case one way or another, but the commander NOT going makes it.


Cost shouldn't be an object in this area, if it saves lives it's worth it.Well, cost is always an issue, but for stuff that is immediately life-saving, the margin can be higher than usual, though certainly not limitless.

Then you get into things about availability, even if the will to buy all the latest greatest stuff is there. The military doesn't own factories.

[Garrette]

Maybe, this hits on one of the main issues of the occupation. What exactly is the US military trying to accomplish with soldiers driving around Iraq? Why nearly three years after the beginning of the war are US soldiers still actively involved in what appears to be a civil war? At this point I could believe that American soldiers might be helping to patrol a border or perhaps protecting the seat of a fledgling Iraqi government. But maybe the problem here from the start is that there was a view that instead of letting the Iraqi officials understand that the US and Britain would be there for a limited time and for a limited mission the coalition pushed the idea that the coalition would solve all problems. This was an impossibly large mission and the time for letting the Iraqi government understand that the days of Americans riding around the country in humvees playing Roy Rogers (except that in the case of Iraq the bullets don't magically zip around this Roy Rogers) is about to end.I'll agree with massive mishandling and (apparently) poor planning. I got in Baghdad right after Saddam's regime fell and worked first with and then in CPA. I got to travel most of the country more than once. Two issues were apparent to us on the ground there:

1. Civil War was a lurking monster even in the summer of 2003 and held at bay only by US presence.

2. CPA was a mistake. The occupation should have been named an occupation with the military commander in complete charge, declaring martial law. This would have been in accord with Geneva-Hague, made one chain-of-authority as opposed to the two that were there, and demonstrated clearly to the then-only-potential insurgents that we were serious. You will think I'm joking, but there were several occasions (on the street, in meetings with Iraqi officials, and working at CPA) when Iraqis approached me and emphatically said words to the effect "Why don't you shoot them? You must shoot the looters and the bandits! They will respect nothing else." We were in a be-nice mode at the time.