This is becoming something of a trend. Remember when Spc. Wilson embarassed Donald Rumsfeld with a question about the lack of Humvee armor? What does it say about the state of affairs when the only thing that lights a fire under Washington’s ass is an embarrassing story in the newspaper?

Ummm… not true. Since that reservist was told to ask the question and had not been over here to see firsthand.

I work in Iraq for the company that puts the UP ARMOR on Hummers and Duece 1/2’s and other miltary vehicles…I am staring at a stack of armor higher than your computerdesk and know for a fact that they have up armor for all the vehicles in theater. There are certain levels of up armorment and ballistic panels for the vest the troops wear. The type that the NYT is refering to isnt the miliatarys’ fault, how bout pointing the finger at the company that makes the ceramic plants in the first place??? They are modifying the amor plates to be lighter thats all.

It seems that right winger keep taking our fighting points and turning them on us.
For example this armor, I keep hearing that ‘crazy liberals’ dont understand that our solders cant manuver with a bunch of body armor. And now Bush is telling us that if we dont support him then we are underming Americas war. We better get more tactile in our opposition and anticipation of how they are going to twist our view to thier favor.

I am staring at a stack of armor higher than your computerdesk and know for a fact that they have up armor for all the vehicles in theater.

Three years after the war started. Clap…..clap…..clap…..clap. I think the issue is why the fuck that armor wasn’t on hand and bolted to every HMMVW in the theater before the conflict started. And you’re fucking right I’m pointing the finger at the military- going over 24 months in a hostile theater without the proper armor for the conflict is shitty planning, and directly attributable to ex-pharmaceutical CEO Rumsfeld’s staggering fucking incompetence.

I saw someplace a General mention that there isn’t enough armour that you can put on any thing to protect soilders from Explosives.

It’s another dead end issue.

Nothing is going to protect Soilders from getting blown up by others.

Explosive weapons are more powerful than anything in this world that we can build to protect us from it’s destructive forces.

It’s like old fasion street racing, when you think you have a fast car….............

Got Nitro?

Or Bio?

“Unfortunately, it’s going to take at least a year to get that new gear into the field. “

So the plane delivering this armor can be the same plane that will start bringing the troops home when they start reducing their numbers. This would make perfect sense.

bravo, old hippy, bravo

The armor was on vehicles in Kuwait and very few of them were in Iraq. Why were the up-armor units in the safe zone?? I agree Snark. This ain’t the smartest military on earth by no means.

Hey Old Hippie- They have had Up Armor since ’04 I have been in theater since Sept, 03…. As for using the same plane- I wish that was the case and I know that you and I would use those same planes to bring ‘em home but it’s the Army remember…They will take a fuel convoy north just to get it back down south to Kuwait…Go figure??

“MILITARY INTELLEGENCE” Two words combined that can’t make sense – Dave Mustaine / Megadeth

Here’s another perspective on the armor issue – that more armor only slows you down. First off, this assumes that most soldiers are getting killed in firefights where they have to run and jump etc, when the war increasingly is moving away from those kind of direct face offs. It’s sniper fire and roadside bombs, mostly. Or a bomb, and a quick barrage of fire before the reinforcements arrive.

It’s interesting how your perceptions of safety, etc, in a conflict or an extreme situation. For instance, most volunteers at Ground Zero refused to wear air filters. Soldiers (and journalists) also smokes like crazy in a war zone – the attitude, of hell, I’m getting shot at why worry about cancer. This soldiers’ take seems to be similiar: more weight slows me down, giving the perception of less control over my fate, even when it’s been proven that a huge percentage of fatalities are happening cause there’s gaps in the armor.

January 14, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
All Dressed Up With No Way to Fight
By ANDREW EXUM
The New York Times

Beirut

THIS week Senator Hillary Clinton, citing a secret Pentagon report that suggested some marines killed in Iraq might have survived had they been wearing more body armor, became the latest in a long line of politicians to castigate the Pentagon for a supposed failure to adequately protect our fighting men and women. Well-intentioned as the senator might be, the body-armor issue, like so many in war, is just not that simple.

From 2000 until 2004, I was an infantry officer in the Army. I deployed with a light-infantry platoon to Afghanistan in 2002, then with a platoon of Army Rangers to Iraq in 2003 and back to Afghanistan in 2004. While I can testify that soldiers usually appreciate the protection body armor gives them, the load shouldered by the average infantryman often hinders his ability to fight – especially at high altitude as in Afghanistan.

But in Iraq, as well, the “soldier’s load” is often unbearable. Most studies recommend that a soldier should not be burdened with more than one-third of his body weight. But if you take a 160-pound soldier and put 40 pounds of Kevlar and body armor on him and then he picks up an automatic weapon, ammunition, water and first aid equipment, it’s not long before he is carrying half his body weight – and he is then expected to run, jump and fight insurgents, themselves carrying little more than a 10-pound AK-47. All of this, of course, often takes place in 120-degree heat in the cities of Iraq.

Lost among the politicians’ cries for more extensive armor for the troops is the fact that most soldiers, in my experience and based on discussions with many, feel they have enough armor already – and many feel they are increasingly being burdened with too much equipment. And the new supplementary body armor unveiled this week in Washington doubles the weight of the equipment – worn over the torso and, now, the upper arms – to 32 pounds from 16 pounds (for a medium-sized soldier).

While an Army spokesman said yesterday that the new equipment was developed based on feedback from units in the field – and certainly, he assured me, not from any political pressure – the statements from soldiers in Iraq tell a different story.

An article last week from The Associated Press noted that “soldiers in the field were not all supportive of a Pentagon study that found improved body armor saves lives” and that some argued “that more armor would hinder combat effectiveness.”

As an Army captain told The A.P.: “You’ve got to sacrifice some protection for mobility. If you cover your entire body in ceramic plates, you’re just not going to be able to move.”

Thankfully, many military leaders at both the tactical and strategic levels recognize they must strike a balance between protecting soldiers and preserving their mobility and fighting abilities. At some point, the public’s desire to wrap ourtroops in a protective blanket of armor just gets ridiculous.

“We don’t want a medieval knight,” Maj. Gen. Stephen M. Speakes, the director of force development for the Army, said this week. “We are not going to be hoisted onto a horse.”

Similarly, lower-ranking Army officers and noncommissioned officers with whom I have spoken over the past few days stress the need for two things: the development of lighter armor, and also the preservation of a leader’s right to tailor his unit’s load – including the body armor they wear – depending on the mission.

Sadly, this controversy – like the debates over Army interrogation tactics, prisoner abuse and troop withdrawals – takes place within the context of a nation grown weary of its adventure in Iraq and a Bush administration on the defensive. Elected officials like Senator Clinton, while no doubt genuinely motivated by concern for the welfare of our soldiers, also see political opportunity. And the voices that get overlooked are the most important ones: those of the soldiers themselves.

Much of this furor started a year ago when a soldier from my hometown, Chattanooga, Tenn. – apparently encouraged by an embedded reporter from the local newspaper (which, incidentally, was once owned by my family) – complained of digging through scrap heaps to jury-rig “hillbilly armor” for his unit’s vehicles in a Kuwait question-and-answer session with Donald Rumsfeld.

Secretary Rumsfeld’s callous answer – “You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have” – was roundly criticized as being out of touch with what the rest of America felt: that the men and women who serve our country in battle deserve nothing but the best equipment.

The problem with this noble sentiment is that the American public and its elected representatives don’t always understand what military officers and soldiers do: that the safety of individual soldiers must always be balanced against the ability to accomplish the unit mission.

I worry that this timeless lesson is now being forgotten in the interest of minimizing American casualties. “Protecting soldiers,” as an Army spokesman told me the other day, “is our No. 1 priority.”

Excuse me, but shouldn’t winning the war be our No. 1 priority?

Andrew Exum is the author of “This Man’s Army.”

Soldiers Ordered to Shed Armor or Face Losing Benefits: Two deploying soldiers and a concerned mother reported Friday afternoon that the US Army appears to be singling out soldiers who have purchased Pinnacle’s Dragon Skin Body Armor for special treatment. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.

Yeah, Shifty, but their armor wasn’t produced by a highly overpriced no-bid contractor.

It’s a dilema either side of this issue.

As combat troops will tell you that Wieght plays an important role for Physical Endurance. Many use speed to as a tool to outwit there opponents and shed thier Armor to get an advantage over slower manuverablity with wearing the self proclaimed solution suit of protection. Being sloer makes you a bigger Target and it can mean the difference between life and death.

Stop Playing Politics with those who chose what they want and decide for themselve what works best.

I’ve never been in the battlefield, but I can in fact understand it doesn’t matter one I- Oh -TA from what will kill you in battle and what won’t.

Can you expect that solving this issue? Because as soon as you scoop away the sand long enough, another problem in the military will arise and show the Stupidity of War!

Freindly Fire kills armored suited Soilders too…..

NOTICE THE REPTILIAN SYMBOLOGY USED BY THE NEW WORLD ORDER ARMY OF ONE LOGO, AGAIN?

“DRAGON SKIN®“:http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/sov.php

When the latest body armor flap broke ten days ago, several commenters here talked up the Dragon Skin protective system as a better alternative. Now, Soldiers for the Truth — the group which ignited the current armor debate — is passing on reports from two deploying GIs that “their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies.”

According to Defense Review — which has been tracking Pinnacle’s gear for a while — the Skin is basically your standard body armor, laced with silver-dollar sized ceramic discs. These are configured over the vest like scales (hence the “Dragon” sobriquet).

Some folks say the Skin is at least as tough as standard-issue armor, and it’s flexible, too — which should make it more comfortable. But, if I’m reading right, the basic Dragon Skin vest weighs about 8 lbs. more than the Interceptor OTV armor that soldiers generally wear now. That extra weight, I’m guessing, is the reason why one commander tried to spook his men out of their Skin. And I have a feeling this is just one commander’s words — not some Pentagon-wide directive, as SFTT implies. We’ll see.

That armor is being shipped to Iraq in anticipation of and preparation for an assault on Iran. The Iranians will put up a stiffer fight than Iraq did. Our troops will be leaving Iraq, but possibly headed east, not west.

The aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt is on the move in the Atlantic, possibly for the Medeterranian, and the USS Carl Vinson just left Singapore and headed toward the Middle East, crossing the Indian Ocean.

As I write this, I have a gut feeling that it will be Syria that gets hammered. At any rate, war is coming. Mark that.