| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| New body armor shelved in Iraq |
| 2006-03-27 |
| HUSAYBAH, Iraq (AP) -- Extra body armor -- the lack of which caused a political storm in the United States -- has flooded in to Iraq, but many Marines here promptly stuck it in lockers or under bunks. Too heavy and cumbersome, many say. Marines already carry loads as heavy as 70 pounds when they patrol the dangerous streets in towns and villages in restive Anbar province. The new armor plates, although only about 5 pounds per set, are not worth carrying for the additional safety they are said to provide, some say. "We have to climb over walls and go through windows," said Sgt. Justin Shank. "I understand the more armor, the safer you are. But it makes you slower. People don't understand that this is combat, and people are going to die." Staff Sgt. Thomas Bain shared concerns about the extra pounds. "Before you know it, they're going to get us injured because we're hauling too much weight and don't have enough mobility to maneuver in a fight from house to house," said Staff Sgt. Bain, who is assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment. "I think we're starting to go overboard on the armor." Since the insurgency erupted in Iraq, the Pentagon has been criticized for supplying insufficient armor for Humvees and too few bulletproof vests. In one remarkable incident, soldiers publicly confronted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about the problem on live television. Hometown groups across the United States have since raised money to send extra armor to troops, and the Pentagon, under congressional pressure, launched a program in October to reimburse troops who had purchased armor with their own money. Soldiers and their parents spent hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars on armor until the Pentagon began issuing the new protective gear. In Staff Sgt. Bain's platoon of about 35 men, Marines said only three or four wore the plates after commanders distributed them last month and told them that use was optional. Top military officials, including Secretary of the Army Francis Harvey, acknowledge the concerns over weight and mobility but have urged that the new gear be mandatory. "That's going to add weight, of course," Mr. Harvey said. "You've read where certain soldiers aren't happy about that. But we think it's in their best interest to do this." Marines have shown a special aversion to the new plates because they tend to patrol on foot, sometimes conducting two patrols each day that last several hours. They feel the extra weight. In Euphrates River cities from Ramadi and Romanna, lance corporals to captains have complained about the added weight and lack of mobility. But some commanders have refused to listen. In the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, for example, commanders require use of the plates. Last year, a study by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner said dozens of Marines killed by wounds to the torso might have survived had the larger plates been in use. "I'm sure people who ... lost kidneys would have loved to have had them on," said 2nd Lt. William Oren, who wears the plates. "More armor isn't the answer to all our problems. But I'll recommend them because it's more protection." Some Marines have chosen to wear the plates, particularly those in more vulnerable jobs, such as Humvee turret gunners. But many think the politics of the issue eventually will make the plates mandatory. "The reason they issued [the plates], I think, is to make people back home feel better," said Lance Cpl. Philip Tootle. "I'm not wishing they wouldn't have issued them. I'm just wishing that they wouldn't make them mandatory." |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #15 Arac. This helmet, I suppose, Was meant to ward off blows, It's very hot And weighs a lot, As many a guardsman knows, As many a guardsman knows, As many a guardsman knows, As many a guardsman knows, So off, so off that helmet goes. (Giving their helmets to attendants.) Chorus. Yes, yes, yes, So off that helmet goes! Arac. This tight-fitting cuirass Is but a useless mass, It's made of steel, And weighs a deal, This tight-fitting cuirass Is but a useless mass, A man is but an ass Who fights in a cuirass, So off, so off goes that cuirass. (Removing cuirasses.) Chorus. Yes, yes, yes, So off goes that cuirass! These brassets, truth to tell, May look uncommon well, But in a fight They're much too tight, They're like a lobster shell, They're like a lobster shell! (Removing their brassets) Chorus. Yes, yes, yes, They're like a lobster shell. Arac. These things I treat the same (Indicating leg pieces.) (I quite forget their name.) They turn one's legs To cribbage pegs — Their aid I thus disclaim, Their aid I thus disclaim, Though I forget their name, Though I forget their name, Their aid, their aid I thus disclaim! All. Yes, yes, yes, Their aid I thus disclaim! |
| Posted by: bruce 2006-03-27 19:08 |
| #14 Just think how much armor our troops could wear if we took away their ammo *and* their guns! Better yet. Seal each soldier into a reinforced concrete bunker! We could call it something catchy, like Maginot Line... |
| Posted by: Iblis 2006-03-27 15:56 |
| #13 On road? Nope. On patrol in cities. Foot patrols. and in a firefight you cannot depend on getting back tot he Stryker or LAV for a reload. You go with what you have. And its not always about weight. Its about tactical mobility: your ability to bend, twist move, sprint quickly from a stop, crawl, jump up, etc. Quickly. Some of the body armor provides too much weight. Some of it too much rigidity. Its each individual squad leader that shoudl be deciding this - based on his commander's intnet and the tactical situation. If you're pulling airguard out the back hatch or a track, or the top of a Humvee, then you want the extra plate, etc. If you're doing a tactical cordon and clear, going room to room, dealing with stairs, etc, you need more mobility. So, providing this array of body armor is good, but mandating this stuff is stupid and wrong. Funny that Congress, Dems and the Press seem to be playing the role of LBJ (meddling destructive micromanagement) in Vietnam here, and that the President is actually allowing the theater chain of command put responsibility at the echelon where it sits best - letting the professionals do what they have been trianed to do. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-03-27 15:40 |
| #12 I'm speaking from experience. We rarely wore armor in Nam. But many of us wish we had. And wish we had the current ceramic plates that actually stop some of these rounds. Yeah, ammo is one of the heaviest items to lug around. these guys are basically on roads, unlike us. They can carry the ammo in an accompanying vehicle. I know how heavy these items get, but it's worth it. I know. |
| Posted by: SOP35/Rat 2006-03-27 14:32 |
| #11 This is a major problem. It has nothing to do with armor but everything to do with who's in command. Patten should have shot the coward. Then, he should have shot the press. This crap is what gets people killed. If the press wants armor, then they can buy and wear their own. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-03-27 12:55 |
| #10 "many Marines here promptly stuck it in lockers or under bunks. Too heavy and cumbersome" I told you so. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-03-27 12:43 |
| #9 Hackworth had a very personal reason for knowing that the helmets save lives. While he was serving in Korea, he got shot in the head. Luckily for him, the act of penetrating his helmet saved him by changing the angle of the bullet and it just sort of skimmed around his head and only damaged his hearing a little. So while yes, the helmet didn't stop the bullet, it kept his brains in his head. Read his book sometime and you'll learn that Hackworth was the cat with 9 lives. The poor guy nearly died and should have died so many times, it's not even funny. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2006-03-27 12:19 |
| #8 This body armor controversy is a rerun of the combat helmet issue during the Vietnam War. David Hackworth, a battalion commander during the war, wrote about how many soldiers in Vietnam hated wearing their helmets because of the heat and because they got in the way, preferring bandannas. But he always made them wear their helmets, because they slowed down bullet and shell fragments in a way that bandannas wouldn't. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-03-27 12:09 |
| #7 Well! The nerve of those soldiers and Marines! After all the trouble we went through to help! Just shows how ignorant those folks are, volunteering for war! But choice is not an option for those that know more than the 'rest of us', so it prolly will be made mandatory, until we see the story about how a guy fell onto a land mine because he lost his balance; then the cry will be, "Too heavy!" |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-03-27 12:09 |
| #6 Maybe water? That's a great headline - "Troops die of dehydration due to reduction of water bottle size". |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2006-03-27 12:06 |
| #5 They need to offload some of the other shit they are dragging around. If 5 lbs. saves you, you need that 5 lbs. I'm sure they are lugging other items they could do with out. Like ammo? |
| Posted by: Iblis 2006-03-27 12:01 |
| #4 WTG MSM another one in the "Win" column for you. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-03-27 11:43 |
| #3 They need to offload some of the other shit they are dragging around. If 5 lbs. saves you, you need that 5 lbs. I'm sure they are lugging other items they could do with out. |
| Posted by: SOP35/Rat 2006-03-27 11:30 |
| #2 This was an expensive CYA from DoD. The Marines made this point clear before the extra body armor was distributed. It would be nice if the MSM didn't drive the DoD's decisions, and the Marines on the ground did. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-03-27 09:37 |
| #1 In one remarkable incident, soldiers publicly confronted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about the problem on live television. Forgot to mention that was a setup by a scheming reporter and a planted army guy. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-03-27 09:36 |