January 07, 2006
Thick-Headedness Does Not Count As Armor
I relish when pundits try make profound judgments about a subject they clearly do not understand, like this - yeah, I know - NY Times article that breathlessly states:
A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.The ceramic plates in vests currently worn by the majority of military personnel in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back. In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.
Thirty-one of the deadly wounds struck the chest or back so close to the plates that simply enlarging the existing shields "would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," according to the study, which was obtained by The New York Times.
Liberal blog Newshog certainly thinks this is today's Crime of the Century, running the headline Rumsfeld and Armor - Criminal Negligence Or Treason? Smelling a choice to score cynical political points, there has been much faux concern for our troops (from the same one liberals have called Marines murderers and war criminals for 40 years, of course) by loopy Kos diarists and the always amusing Pam's House Blend among others, who don't know what they are talking about any more than did the writer at the Times who cobbled this shoddy article together in the first place.
Lets look at some facts, shall we?
Interceptor armor is relatively new, first being deployed in 1999 as a two-part system, made up of a flexible tactical vest and armor plate inserts. The vest itself is a tactical weave that will stop much shrapnel and pistol bullets up to 9mm on its own, but it will not stop any rifle bullet, nor some shrapnel. The second component of the Interceptor system is a hard 10"x12" ceramic armor plate known as Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPIs) that can withstand multiple strikes from most, but no all rifle cartridges encountered on the modern battlefield.
The Interceptor system used by the Marines (details here) is a marked improvement over the previous PASGT vest, and is available in five sizes. The upgraded version of the Interceptor, which started being deployed in March of 2005, increased the protection with the addition of some side and upper arm protection and can be viewed here (PDF).
But the careful construction of the report defies logic and objectivity.
By design, the Times article shows an inaccurate picture of the Interceptor system provided to the Marines, based upon a false premise. This study only looked at fatalities, those Marines killed by upper body wounds while wearing vests. It excluded all the times where Interceptor vests worked as designed and the Marine survived.
This is akin to judging automobile safety by looking at only wrecks resulting in fatalities, as oppose to those wrecks where fatalities were prevented by good automotive design.
Reporters and clueless critics will not doubt be outraged decades from now when body armor of the day yields similar results against plasma rifles or other military technologies of that time.
There has always been and will always be an arms race between those developing armor and those designing weapons to defeat that armor. It has been that way for tens of thousands of years. It will be this way for the foreseeable future.
It would be smart for these “experts” to pull their heads out of their crawlspaces long enough to glance at a history book before they make fools of themselves yet again.
It is possible to issue full protective armor that pistol and rifle fire cannot penetrate but it would be too heavy to carry.
Well, actually they do have full body armor that does protect against rifle and pistol rounds. It's called a tank. A bit difficult to do house to house searches wearing one though.
Ground troops always have to maintain a balance between protection and necessities, and the further they are from their supply line the more they need the extra ammunition, water, grenades, etc. When it comes to a choice between carrying more armor or more ammunition, the armor looses every time. Both are heavy but the armor is useless if you can't fight back.
Posted by: Fish at January 7, 2006 07:51 AMThere you go again, expecting the left to checks facts. Ain't gonna happen so long as it doesn't add to the position.
Fish made most of the points I would make; and a darn fine job of doing it, too, I might add. The average combat soldier weight ten years ago was 230 pounds; which included all the combat gear (rifle, ammo, water, grenades, rations [usually two meals], flack vest, ruck sack, etc totalling about 55 pounds). The average combat soldier today weighs about 265 pounds; a growth of about an additional 30 pounds for about 85 pounds of equipment. We're slowly making individual tanks out of our infantry. Humanitarily, that sounds "nice", but is impractical in combat situations. Because of the whining about soldiers being killed in HMMWVs (by IEDs) the vehicles have been up-armored to the point of losing mobility and they still can't protect from the IEDs employing artillery shells (like most IEDs).
The whiny left needs to shut up and let the military experts figure out what is necessary on the battlefield and what is not. Pushing this crap onto them in the name of possibly saving 31 lives at the expense of other programs that may save hundreds of lives is just so much over-reaction. War is hell; actual combat is a MF. So unless you want to put your ass on the line, keep your namby pamby whiny suggestions to yourself and let the experts do their jobs. Oh, and expect casualties in war.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 7, 2006 08:21 AMOh, and go here and be proud!
http://www4.army.mil/yearinphotos/2005/
Credit for finding the link goes to The Neocon Blogger at:
http://rightalways.blogspot.com/
Go over to his site; he's got a post about a sniper shot in Ramadi that will knock your socks off. That's the return on investment for great training that enhances a skill.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 7, 2006 08:51 AMJust curious, the Times story said the upgraded body armor has been available since 2003. My question is, why did the military wait until 2005 to utilize this armor? Thanks
Posted by: Will at January 7, 2006 06:06 PMCY
On Forbes at http://www.forbesREMOVETHIS.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2006/01/07/ap2434673.html (your comment programming doesn't like this link)
U.S. soldiers in the field were not all supportive of a Pentagon study that found improved body armor saves lives, with some troops arguing Saturday that more armor would hinder combat effectiveness.Posted by: Darleen at January 7, 2006 06:11 PM
Will,
There is a difference between available and available in the quantities desired.
Logistics as usual is not very sexy. Until there is a problem.
Currently the manufacturers of the armor are going all out (not possible before contracts are let - which due to Congressional rules take time) to make the desired sets.
Posted by: M. Simon at January 7, 2006 08:03 PMThe Left now feigns concern for our soldiers after having encouraged their friends(terrorists or insurgents, take your pick) in Iraq to kill as many of our men as possible. I find them disgusting, and I really do think that there will have to be a reckoning with these traitors when our men return.
As for the armor, it is best to let the individual soldiers decide what they need, and under what circumstances they need it. And I am not going to sit back here at home and second guess the decisions they make.
As for the Left, they don't give a shit about our soldiers, and this is nothing more than BDS. Piss on the Left.
Posted by: Templar Knight at January 7, 2006 08:46 PMThis study only looked at fatalities, those Marines killed by upper body wounds while wearing vests. It excluded all the times where Interceptor vests worked as designed and the Marine survived.
This is akin to judging automobile safety by looking at only wrecks resulting in fatalities, as oppose to those wrecks where fatalities were prevented by good automotive design.
This is a silly criticism and a very poor analogy.
We don't need to look at the cases where the Interceptor armor saved lives because nobody is looking to replace the Interceptor armor, only to make it better. In fact, the success of the existing armor is precisely the reason why some people want to expand its coverage area. If the Interceptor armor coverage is expanded, it will save lives. The only trade-off appears to be additional monetary cost, which is why this issue has a lot of traction.
We're not looking at the equivalent of "automobile safety" here. The question isn't whether it's safe to fight in an Iraq combat zone. The question is, could it be made safer, and is there any trade-off for such increased safety?
A better analogy would be if cars didn't have seatbelts on the passenger side. If hundreds of people were dying in accidents because they were sitting in the passenger seat without a seatbelt, we'd understandably want to know why cars didn't have them. The fact that seatbelts saved the lives of thousands of drivers wouldn't be a counterargument to this criticism; it would merely bolster the claim that seatbelts save lives and should be provided for all occupants of the vehicle.
Posted by: Dave at January 8, 2006 12:17 AMMore armor may not save lives.
You are trading mobility for defence. Wars are not won by defence alone.
For a fighting soldier mobilty is probably more important. Currently soldier go into the field with 80 to 85 pounds of gear. Talk about humping the boonies.
So the real question is how many soldiers lost their lives due to lack of mobility vs those killed due to insufficient armor?
Nothing is cost free.
Posted by: M. Simon at January 8, 2006 05:16 AMAll anyone has to do is visit the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC, Arms and Armor Department. The knights were so overloaded that foot-soldiers only had to knock them off their horses with a rope strategically placed between two trees. Let the guys in the field decide what they want for protection, not anti-military types writing for the N.Y.Times!
Posted by: Tom TB at January 8, 2006 10:24 AMThe problem is, of course, logistics. When we finally figured out that we were fighting an insurgency that preferred IEDs and other ambush techniques over pitched battles, the need for body armor became obvious and critical. That is the scandal: body armor that was available in 1999 should have been a top priority.
I'm sure the troops would have hated another heavy and non-breathing layer of armor in the Iraqi summer, until it kept them alive. The scandal isn't liberal hysteria; it's the Government's incompetence in waging this war.
Thank goodness you wrote this. I was so mad when I saw this story in my local paper, it bothered me all day.
Here's an example of what the story COULD have said:
New Armor Will Save Soldiers in the FutureNew individual body armor, long under development by DoD contractors, will save future soldiers' lives in conflicts similar to that currently underway in Iraq, according to a classified Pentagon report.
The study of casualties in Iraq demonstrates that body armor under development will reduce casualties in this type of conflict in the future by up to 80%. The Pentagon is said to be rushing procurement of the new body armor in hopes of saving lives in the current conflict. Purchase of the new body armor is currently underway although manufacturers are struggling with production of a brand new high technology product.
There are concerns among military experts though as there is a trade off between armor and troop mobility. Some experts are concerned that the new armor types may restrict body movement due to its weight and rigidity.
You get the idea. My story is just as true as their's.
Posted by: Dwilkers at January 8, 2006 11:03 AMIf the meadia actually cared about American lives they would be behaving as a cheer leading squad for terrorists and stop trying to screw with national security by leaking classified information.
Posted by: Murray at January 8, 2006 06:20 PMA question for Dave and Jim. How many hours, days, weeks, months, or years have you engaged an enemy in combat while wearing body armor? If the answer is zero, you might think about bowing out of the conversation.
The NYT is no friend of the military, soldiers, military leaders or this administration. They will sell their collective soul for a story that sheds bad light on any of the aforementioned. The NYT is not suitable for puppy training, little less public consumption as a reputable news source.
If the danged PC crowd would let the military fight as needed, they wouldn't have need for near as much perceived protection, because they wouldn't be that close to the enemy. Tanks and artillery take out the enemy from great distances and minimize friendly casualties. Collateral casualties have a tendency to be a bit higher, but our guys would fair a lot better. As long as the whiny left doesn't want ANY collateral casualties, our guys will die needlessly. Think about that for a minute or two.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 8, 2006 10:30 PMAnd then there's the really obvious part that just bears a passing mention:
A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.It was a secret Pentagon study, but is no longer because it was leaked. Someone committed a criminal act to release this information. I'm sure someone will eventually find a way to leak the secret plans developed to go after Iran or Syria (which are really contingency plans - things that DoD does all the time to deal with the real world), but they're waiting for an opportune moment to do that... Posted by: lawhawk at January 9, 2006 09:36 AM
The left shows its complete lack of understanding of the military when they jump on these studies as evidence of wrongdoing. From my understanding, the Pentagon is constantly reviewing their practices and procedures so that they can improve performance. Its a constant loop of review, feedback and improvement. The report should not be taken as an sign of failure.
Posted by: Ed Colletta at January 9, 2006 03:44 PMLet the guys in the field decide what they want for protection, not anti-military types writing for the N.Y.Times!
Hold on -- you're making it sound as if the New York Times is somehow magically going to force soldiers to put on armor which they don't want. I'm not sure what you imagine the NYTimes is capable of, but I'm pretty sure this isn't it.
I suspect that the logistics of body armor is driven by money and politics much more than by what the individual soldiers want. Do you have evidence that soldiers don't want the upgraded body armor?
Posted by: jhkim at January 9, 2006 08:41 PMDo you have evidence that soldiers don't want the upgraded body armor?
Yeah, I do. Beleive it or not, someone actually thought to ask the soldiers themselves:
U.S. soldiers in the field were not all supportive of a Pentagon study that found improved body armor saves lives, with some troops arguing Saturday that more armor would hinder combat effectiveness......Second Lt. Josh Suthoff, 23, of Jefferson City, Mo., said he already sacrifices enough movement when he wears the equipment. More armor would only increase his chances of getting killed, he said.
"You can slap body armor on all you want, but it's not going to help anything. When it's your time, it's your time,'' said Suthoff, a platoon leader in the brigade's 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment. "I'd go out with less body armor if I could.''
The study and their remarks highlight the difficulty faced by the Army and Marine Corps in providing the best level of body armor protection in a war against an insurgency whose tactics are constantly changing.
Both the Army and the Marines have weighed the expected payoff in additional safety from extra armor against the measurable loss of combat effectiveness from too much armor.
The guys who actually wear the stuff--not some clueless Kos diarist or an agenda-driven Times reporter-- know there is a trade-off that has existed since earliest days of warfare, and one likely to exist far into the future.
The soldiers on the ground seem to prefer not being shot at all than being able to absorb bullets. Not very surprising is it?
They soldiers I've read of feel that the addition weight, even including armor, increases their chances of getting shot by slowing them down.
Even the upgraded armor does not protect the head, lower abdomen, mid to lower arms, or legs. More than half a solider or Marine's body is still exposed, without any armor at all.
Some, like the soldier above, wishes he could wear less armor for more speed. This is a fairly common sentiment. Until armor technology becomes lighter and more flexible, the guys who wear it don't want to carry any more than they already do.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 10, 2006 12:43 PM"A better analogy would be if cars didn't have seatbelts on the passenger side. If hundreds of people were dying in accidents because they were sitting in the passenger seat without a seatbelt, we'd understandably want to know why cars didn't have them. The fact that seatbelts saved the lives of thousands of drivers wouldn't be a counterargument to this criticism; it would merely bolster the claim that seatbelts save lives and should be provided for all occupants of the vehicle."
Actually, that's about the same kind of analogy. Because people die everyday in car accidents while wearing a seatbelt. Like wearing the armor, a seatbelt doesn't protect a driver in every accident. Making a bigger seatbelt or building a driver's cabin full of bubblewrap and jello may protect a few more drivers, but will impair the ability to drive for most, thus resulting in more accidents that wouldn't have already occured and reducing the ability to drive, the purpose of getting behind the wheel in the first place.
Posted by: Jason at January 11, 2006 07:20 AMThat's funny, how you're blaming the "liberal media" for raising this issue. The grunt-first veterans at Soldiers for the Truth (www.sftt.org), home of the late COL Hackworth, have been trying to get the major news organizations to pay attention to this for months:
"Those of you who have read the series of articles that appeared in DefenseWatch can only share my amazement that it has taken this long for the national media to finally realize that here is a DoD procurement scandal that does not cause citizens' eyes to glaze over."
