More Body Armor Discussion

From Intel Dump.

While it is true that the study showed the Marines killed in Iraq would have survived their wounds with extra body armor, that does not translate into "if they had more body armor we would have lost fewer Marines." We might have lost MORE.

and

Combat training quickly convinces you that in modern infantry fighting it is not enough to just use your "common sense." Common sense is often wrong. The easiest example is the battle drill for "react to a near ambush." If the enemy ambushes you from only a short distance away the correct and safest course of action is to rush right at them. This "breaks the back" of the ambush, preventing them from engaging you in a cross-fire. If you don't do that, instead seeking cover or running away, you will surely die. That is not at all an intuitive reaction, but we drill our soldiers to react that way because it is the right thing to do.

So it is with body armor - or the decision to forego wearing more of it. It might seem that increasing body armor protection is, as Gen. Clark puts it, a "necessary step," but he is saying he knows more about what ground commanders should do than the commanders on the ground know. That is micromanagment, and in combat it kills people.

Most of the entry is making the point that Clark's contention that congress should be making an investigation into the lack of armor, is micromanagement and will be putting field officers under a politically charged microscope for decisions made in the theater.

Main and Central has a piece on the quality of the armor and other issues on the company that supplies it.

One of those documents described an April 2002 evaluation by the New York Public Employee Safety and Health Bureau of 1,000 body armor vests that Point Blank had sold to the New York Police Department. 900--90 percent--failed the tests the were submitted to. Some vests were improperly sized, which would have left officers' abdomens exposed. Others failed to stop bullets they were designed to protect against.

Similar documented complaints of improper sizing were reported by U.S. military troops in Afghanistan.

I don't know if the police armor to military armor comparison can be carried, but I'm thinking it may be an indicator of issues that need investigation.

Main and Central also discusses other armor issues.

There is also a review of the present issue armor against a competitor at Defense Review.

And the Daily Kos screams Republican Corruption.

Now, if you had to hazard a guess as to who owns almost 6% of the shares of Armor Holdings, Inc. - shares with a current market value of $88,000,000.00 - who would you guess? Maayybeeee - a company owned by a top Republican campaign donor?

DING-DING-DING-DING DING!!!

What do we have for 'em, Johnny? Yes, that's right - you've won confirmation of your belief that the military procurement system in the U.S. armed forces is RIFE WITH CORRUPTION!!

Yep, it turns out that the company that has the exclusive contract to supply body armor to the Army and Marines is home to a very heavy-hitting Republican campaign donor. Foster Friess, individually and through various family members, has contributed more than $575,000 to Republicans in the previous three campaign cycles, and has chunked in $51,000 so far for 2006.

Of course, he has no evidence of wrong doing, just conjecture based on legal political contributions. I must say that the success of the armor maker isn't really an indicator of corruption. In fact, I'd have been surprised if a contractor, of any political standing, that won the contract to provide for the military, didn't become quite wealthy. The postulation of Pentagon failure to provide armor quickly and evidence of faulty armor seem to be arguments to forward their point.

I will say the link they provide to Soldiers for the Truth is disturbing though.

Two deploying soldiers and a concerned mother reported Friday afternoon that the U.S. Army appears to be singling out soldiers who have purchased Pinnacle's Dragon Skin Body Armor for special treatment. The soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported 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. 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.

No reason for the order is stated or postulated. Makes you wonder though.