Soldiers told to ditch Superior body armor or lose death benefits
 

http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionI...30&htmlId=4514

I find this completely unbelievable... If a soldier is able to afford body armor that is superior then what they issue normally then why on earth shouldnt they be able to wear it? maybe one of the military guys can shed some light on this one?

I can understand not issuing it to everyone as that may not be possible due to money constraints.

i did a little research on this dragon skin armor... its able to stop some armor penetrating rounds... sounds like pretty amazing stuff
this is the better article about the armor itself.
http://www.defensereview.com/modules...rticle&sid=490

I think the "angle" of the Army is that if not everyone has the same thing, there could be dissension and problem among the soldiers. A poor soldier who cannot buy better armor may feel the need to protect himself by "acquiring" better armor from another soldier. I'm not saying it's right, but I do understand the military point of view on issues like this.

Furthermore, the military has decided on the body armor that they're using. They haven't tested the Dragon Skin nearly as thoroughly as theirs, so from their standpoint it's still a liability. Simply because the people who make Dragon Skin claim it's better than anything else out there doesn't make it so. The military is perfectly within their rights to deny life insurance to those who don't comply with the standards.

It probably comes from their insurers... I bet the Private Armour has not been rated by the insurance company and would render their policies null and void.

I agree with Mooseman -- this is not unbelievable at all. If my insurance pays to have my doctor give me medication to treat diabetes, and I find one online thats 'better,' should the insurance still have to pay for it?

Companies clearly specify what they INSURE, and if you choose to use something else, that's fine -- just don't expect them to insure the new risk YOU are taking.

I am actually with the military on this one as well. I have to imagine that the armor used by the military is built to their standards, both in effectivness, and quality control. The military has no such control over a private company. And as stated, until there is a side by side comparision test of both armors, why should the military switch?

If, by some defect, the Dragon Skin lets a soldier be killed where their armor wouldn't have, they just lost a pretty significant investment.

Unless the soldiers who bought it have ballistics tests to prove the claims... Tuff luck, I'm sorry? Hopefully, if it is better, the government will either catch up, or change. But we can't have our soldiers ditching superior government issue equipment for equipment from a private company that is tooting their own horn about its effectivness.

Lastly... 80% of fatalities could be saved? Fuck you, thats bullshit. What the hell is that statistic based on? Anyone of us here, educated or not, could make a similar claim about that Dragonskin, and no on in the world would be able to effectivly put down concrete evidence as to its truth.

God I hate statistics. And god I am so happy I am a math student so that I know why I hate stats.

A soldier has picked that profession because they want someone else to think for them and to tell them what to do.

There should be no exceptions as they will no longer be as an effective tool for those who do the thinking and planning . A soldier is not meant to see the big picture but just to act on simple terms - follow orders.

A soldier has to have faith that overall the big picture is being served. Thats what they signed on to - they no longer exist except as a piece of a larger vision of others.

The armour obviously somehow affects the larger picture.

The soldiers are just having trouble realising that their personal concerns are only relevant in terms of the larger picture.

What?

Did you just tell me why I joined the army?
Did you say that I want someone to do my thinking for me?
Did you just compare me to a cog in a giant machine?

I am not supposed to see the big picture?

I take great offence to these comments. To quote an intelligent, informed and brave training NCO I once had, "Sort Yourself Out."

:| :mad:

Sorry to offend Ben - but go up to your general and tell him you want to make the choices because you see the big picture. See what happens.

As for your NCO I believe he meant ,Sort Yourself Out as to join in with the group, not go find yourself and let him know what changes you want. Do you think it is a coincidence that all your comrades basically think like you do?

We are all cogs in a way, be it in a cubical where we take orders or in a trench.

Don't take it personally -it just is how our leadership system works.
If you are not on the very top - you are a cog.

Could you really imagine a military working where every soldier got to vote on every action because they understood what was best?

Could you see a business working like that?

let me say this...

no soldier pix this job "because they want someone else to think for them"...

the "big picture" is believed to be the freedom for all to decide for themselves!!!

your statement belongs in the Crusades

If a soldier bought his own assault rifle because he didn't like what the QM issued him would he be allowed to change, or ordered to use the "correct" kit?

If you wanted to take your Harley into combat because it was faster and safer than walking - would they let you do that?

As far as I see it, there are better alternatives to most bits of kit IN SOMEONE'S OPPINION. But that's the key - the Army is not a co-operative it's a hierarchy.

If you want a democratic military you need to change the whole system. Sadly part of the deal in any army is that you follow the orders of your command structure - even if they're dumb in your mind.

If you don't like them you can always withdraw your labour - but they send you to the stockade, or shoot you, or whatever.

As long as there is not conscription, everyone in the military is a volunteer, and everyone knew what the rules were when they took the king's shilling.

Now if you want to ask "do the military procure the correct equipment" that's a whole different argument - and no army on earth does, and they never will.

True, I made a mistake in assuming that is implicid in the definition of a soldier and why you have to sign up to join and have no way out.

There are some other pictures as well - such as political goals of individuals, professional goals etc.

The irony is that the soldier who risks his life for freedom has signed his freedoms away to do it.

I am going to walk away from this thread, but before I do, please read this: You will never come close to understanding what my NCO meant by the term SORT YOURSELF OUT.

I find it humourous that you tried to put words in his mouth.

Special ops soliders get to select their own weapons and mods, right?

How many of them get jacked for the side arms? Say on a yearly basis?

If the armed forces can't prevent armed robbery in their own ranks, i'd say we have more problems than bad body armor.

What a terrible excuse.

I can see both sides of this argument, and since I've never been in uniform myself, I wont pretend to know the inner workings of the military procurement procedure, however... It is pretty well known that the low bids get the contract, and thus one would assume that some quality will get sacrificed in order to lower costs. I don't see why a superior product (if indeed it is superior) would be denied to the troops if they are willing to pay for it themselves. It would be nice to see where this directive actually came from, and the real reasons for it instead of the speculation that is in the article.

I would definitely be dismayed if the only reason for this was DOD caving to pressure by the lobbyists for the company that makes the Interceptor body armor who want to curb the competition.

(this all made sense in my head before I posted it, maybe not so much once I put it in writing :p)

Jesus Christ.

martinguerre- I don't really agree with xepherys' post, but your post is just terrible. This thread is not about spec ops soldiers and it is not about weapons. You have no idea what the military is like.

Tachion- you've never been in the military either, so just stop posting about it. To be honest, I'm kinda struggling to be civil when your posts reek of condescension and ignorance. BigBen knows a hell of a lot more than I do about being in the military, and more than you ever will, so respect what he has to say and don't presume to know what it means to be in the military. And btw, Ben was telling YOU to sort yourself out.

As far as the body armor goes.. it's unfortunate. But then again there is a lot of bullshit in the military. Is this order bullshit? Who knows. We'll probably never understand it, so no use trying to pretend we're experts on the subject.

I imagine that if this is as true as they're claiming it is, then Charlatan probably hit it on the head by attributing this to insurance issues.

I couldn't post without commenting on how silly this is. I know a bunch of military folks (Navy/National Gaurd/Coast Gaurd/Marines) and near all of em' would have a knee jerk reaction of, "Fuck you too!" The only problem you'd run up against for using non-standard, personally procured body armor would be that if you develop a problem you won't be near guys who could give spot advice/perform field repairs.

I know that this may be seen as flaming, and I'm really sorry if you think it is - but are you sure that you really want to tell people to STFU unless they're suiably qualified?

Is that how your vision of democracy works?

Surely anyoe that pays their federal taxes is "qualified" to talk about the military, because they pay for it, and it is relevant that they discuss what happens to their money?

The US military is just about one of the most expensive organisations on the planet, and sadly it's stil true that some people won't have the best kit.

If money were no object, all you'd have to do is build a fully flexible totally bomb powered proof combat suit for each soldier.

But even if they did that, some soldiers would die.

The best was to keep american soldiers alive is to not send them to hstile countries on what many people seem to regard as questionable grounds.

The british learned about getting into the wrong fights with Suez in the 50s - how come the Americans keep doing this?

carn...i know i'm not specops... that's pretty obvious. but my point is that rivalry over equipment as justification for this policy suggests that our forces are no more than jealous, heavily armed brigands.

which, i should hope registers pretty immediatly as being in the realm of bullshit.

the end point is that if this stuff is better, or better in certain circumstances...i can't see a reason not to deal with whatever insurance hangups there are, and let the folks on the ground make their own calls about their body armor.

**Mod Note**

Lots of raised voices and bruised feelings in this thread.

Bravo to those who have stepped down in the name of civility...

I just hope EVERYONE can step down before going too far. If not, this thread will be closed and I will dole out punishment.

(and congrats to me for not using any military puns... it wasn't easy ;) )

**End**

Bottom line is, in my opinion, there may not be sufficient testing done on the "Dragon Skin" to prove the reliability and other requirements needed are met for such use. The current combat armor HAS been tested in this capacity.

We cannot (and should not) go by the "testing" specs created by the company that makes the product. That's just stupid. If the military issued or allowed soldiers to use body armor other than armor they themselves have tested, and instead took whatever specs the manufacturer gave and just went with that, there would be a shit storm of uproar- and rightly so. Job #1 is bringing everyone home- alive, and in 1 piece if possible- so since they're responsible for their lives, they MUST test equipment as important as body armor before allowing its use.

Not everything has to be a conspiracy.

Also, keep in mind it's kinda hard to discuss the particulars of the body armor on the troops, for security reasons. They can't go around saying the armor is flawed... it's bad morale, bad PR, and doesn't solve the problem of the armor being bad. So if they're testing this "Dragon Skin", they could be testing now, they could have a plan to test it, or they could have already tested it and be in the process of ordering some, we have no idea.

OK, agreed on the point that people can't just use whatever they want because they feel like it.

But here's where it gets interesting. Many of these soldiers purchased such armor because they weren't issued any by the army. There's a big difference between deciding you think some other company's armor is better and buying your own once it becomes apparent the Army can't/won't issue you any.

Further complicated by the fact that the soldiers were issued $1,000 last year to cover the costs of any additional armor or gear that they may have needed but weren't being properly issued. They were essentially told, "OK, we can't issue it, go buy it, here's $1000 to help cover it," upon which many went and had to spend more than that because there isn't any armor at that price point, and are now being told, $6000 later, that they can't use it. Whoops.

Now, I understand that the Army is a hierarchy, and if they don't want their soldiers wearing third party armor, or third party boots, or whatever, then that's how it is. I also see it from the insurance perspective of not wanting to insure something that hasn't been tested. But I think there's a bit more to it than just "tough shit, deal."

Sorry, you're right. I don't know shit from shit but from what I've seen/heard there is no rivalry over stuff like that.

The unfortunate thing is that soldiers don't get to make decisions like this. Like I said before, there is a lot of bullshit that goes on in the military, and there's really nothing GI Joe Smith can do about it.

Well, that's how I feel, and sorry if I couldn't keep my mouth shut.

Anyway, I had a long post typed out, but fuck it. It would be rather pointless.

Assuming the story is true (I am not certain what biases the site publishing the story may have), I would have to side with the military for two main reasons. First, the definition of “Better” can be very subjective. Is the armor “better” at stopping armor piercing rounds? Is that the main risk that soldiers face in Iraq? Is the armor “better” at stopping shrapnel from an Improvised Explosive Device? Ask yourself “What’s the better car, the faster car or the car that gets better gas mileage?” It depends on the situation and the requirements of that situation.
Secondly there is a huge potential for situations to occur where those that are financially well off to end up with better protection. That’s heading down a road that leads to all sorts of problems.
The complexity of the decisions being made by soldiers and commanders in Iraq is staggering. It’s easy for us to sit back in the safety of our homes and second guess everything that happens there. I don’t advocate blind support, but there are many things that the average person simply has no way of comprehending the factors involved.

martinguerre and carn-

The truth of the matter is that the military is comprised of hundreds of thousands of completely different individuals. Things get stolen on military bases all the time. People get raped or murdered on military installations and in combat zones too. If soldiers were 100% moral and perfect, we wouldn't need MPs outside of a combat zone. SpecOps falls out side of regular SOP. SpecOps has their OWN SOP and their own way of doing things. The reason, generally, that such decisions are made are for comformity and consistancy. Someone made a comparison to weapons which is moot anyway. If you bring your own rifle, unless it is .223, you will not have rounds. If it breaks, the armorer will not (or maybe cannot) fix it. While this is not the same for armor, say something happens. Say you get shot and though you live, the armor is damaged. You cannot use that armor and the army issues you new armor. Now they have taken away something that you own, that was personally yours. Since they allowed it in the first place, they are now responsible for that item... at least once they take it away from you.

At any rate, if you've not been in the military, it's moot why you think things should be how they are. They are how they are. And yes, the citizens pay taxes, so they can speak to how they believe the military SHOULD be... that doens't mean they know anything about how it actually is. I pay taxes that go towards paying government employees. While I think we could do with less of them, I am not experienced in HR, and have no real idea of what it takes to run a company or a country.

Yes, I know all of that. To be honest, I posted such a small comment earlier because I was too lazy to explain everything, as you did.

As far as thievery goes; it's like I heard in boot camp, "Gear adrift must be a gift."

Yes, US citizens are entitled to give their opinion about the military since they pay taxes, but does that mean they are qualified to speak about what goes on in the military? Not in my opinion. Unless you've been in the military, you don't know anything about how it works. I've only been in for a year and I still don't know jackshit. But at least I know that I don't know shit.

Well, this seems to be the major issue, to me. Now, I am not in the military, so I suppose by some standards, I shouldn't even be posting in response to this thread :rolleyes: . But I do understand a bit about how the political economy of the military is not supposed to reflect aspects of class (e.g. being able to afford armor while someone else cannot, and most like that "someone else" is a minority), and how screwed up solidarity would become if class entered the picture to this extent.

The whole psychological goal upon entering the military, *as I understand it* (very little, yes), is to erase individuality and differences as much as possible and to instill a huge sense of group responsibility and "taking one for the team." This sense of brotherhood is essential for combat operations, I imagine. How can you take one for the team when you have better armor than the rest of the team, and you survive something when no one else does?

This is not even close to a parallel, but I'll say it anyway. When I was on the college varsity crew team for 4 years, our coach was a Marine (rank Major) and he ran the joint as such. You should have seen the shit hit the fan when one or two boats started buying their own uniforms that were fancier than other boats' uniforms (issued by the team, which didn't have much financial support as a whole). The whole unity of the team broke down, with people bristling and bitching behind each other's backs, until the coach resolved it by standardizing one uniform.

Now imagine if it wasn't about looking good at rowing competitions, but about actually who survived battles and who didn't? As someone with no authority to speak of on the military, I can't say much, but maybe this is what the military is trying to avoid?