So sez the New York Times:

Quote :

"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 few. The proud. The medium rare.

1/6/2006 9:38:28 PM

yes. because clearly not buying every single marine prohibitively expensive body armor which few other militaries do for every soldier really means that the pentagon is trying to kill marines. I'm also willing to bet that the majority of marines killed are not "front line marines," but rather marines in a more logistical role, thus increasing the number of people for which you must armor in order to skew your statistics.

of course, if the pentagon really cared about our troops, they would purchase a tank for each and every marine, because it is clear that a tank provides more protection than just body armor.

1/6/2006 9:41:25 PM

in addition to the 2000 troops killed, 16,000 have been wounded, including over 7,000 wounded to the point they can't return to duty

just thought i'd throw that in there

1/6/2006 9:41:48 PM

wait, you are telling me that people get hurt, or even *gasp* KILLED in war? STOP THE PRESSES!

1/6/2006 9:42:31 PM

Quote :

"prohibitively expensive "

explain plz

or are you one of those "we go to war with what we have, not what we want" kind of people

1/6/2006 9:45:42 PM

Don't be stupid, Woodfoot.

Clearly if our only consideration was protecting our troops, we could minimalize casualties, yes. But armor slows troops down, especially in desert heat. We can easily make a soldier bulletproof, but he won't be able to move. It also costs money -- money that also has to go to things like armor for the humvees, armor for the tanks, other equipment.

Now, should armor have been sent up? Yes, if we had it available and it wasn't ludicrously pricey. The leaders at the front clearly thought they needed it, so the mobility factor must not have been worth the exposure to bullets.

As to your 16,000 wounded...the number is actually quite a bit higher, but a large part (a majority I think) are wounded so slightly that they're back in combat in a week. I posted here a week or two ago, but now I can't remember where.

[Edited on January 6, 2006 at 9:59 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2006 9:57:51 PM

nope, not necessarily. but I do realize that its a pipe dream to think that we could outfit every man on the ground in iraq in the kind of body armor that hateon.org claims every soldier deserves.

1/6/2006 9:58:48 PM

Quote :

"Don't be stupid, Woodfoot."

wait a sec

doesn't the article say the armor is available, and has been for at least 2 years

so what does the expensiveness of it, which mr. burro mentioned and i questioned, have to do with shit?

i suppose my second comment could have been left out

and i'm thinking the difference between our figures on the wounded must be that mine are wounded in combat, while yours may be total wounded

and mr. burro
whats wrong with someone suggesting we provide the soldiers, the ones who need it, a little more protection?

1/6/2006 10:06:25 PM

Yes, I know that it's available, but we don't know how much it costs. We don't have any idea what that figure is. If the armor were a hundred billion dollars a plate, would you say we should use it? What if it were just a billion? A million? A hundred thousand? At what point does it stop becoming ludicrous?

Obviously I don't think the armor is as expensive as all that, but you shouldn't act as though money is no object when it comes to defending our troops. It is, and that's sad, but ignoring that reality won't improve anything.

1/6/2006 10:11:13 PM

Troops get what is coming to them. They get paid to do a job with risk. They have no right to bitch when they end up on the unhappy side of chance.

1/6/2006 10:17:28 PM

Just think of the Batman armor in Batman Begins. Same problem there.

1/6/2006 10:20:01 PM

The money is not an issue

IF THE ARMOR IS SITTING IN AN ARMORY SOMEWHERE

if we have procured it for use protecting troops
it is ludicrous to leave it sitting there

unless there are faaaar more sinister plans afoot

1/6/2006 10:23:38 PM

how do you know it's not sitting available in a warehouse owned by the manufacturer and not paid for yet?

and it could cost 1229234023829 dollars a pound for all we know.

1/6/2006 10:34:08 PM

PERHAPS THEY'RE RIGHT NEXT TO THE VALID REASONS TO GO TO WAR

1/6/2006 10:36:33 PM

Quote :

"and mr. burro whats wrong with someone suggesting we provide the soldiers, the ones who need it, a little more protection?"

like I said. personal tanks for every marine!!! suggesting it isn't a horrible thing. getting it is an entirely different matter.

1/6/2006 10:36:33 PM

Woodfoot, you're misunderstanding the story.

read it again slowly, and try to purge your mind of sinister plots by the military.

The technology has been available (to protect the torso from every angle) since 2003, but the military has been slow in ordering this type of body armor.

Its not sitting in a damn armory, you fool.

1/6/2006 10:42:59 PM

Quote :

"personal tanks for every marine"

Quote :

"whats wrong with someone suggesting we provide the soldiers, the ones who need it, a little more protection?""

compare/contrast

do you not agree that certain marines in more high risk positions, such as patrols in more hazardous areas or security point guards, could use more protection than your standard issue grunt?

and FUEL
i haven't read the article
i've read 2 run-on sentences
so please provide me the link that makes you more correct than me


[Edited on January 6, 2006 at 10:48 PM. Reason : plz]

1/6/2006 10:45:45 PM

Quote :

"unless there are faaaar more sinister plans awoodfoot"

1/6/2006 10:47:35 PM

Woodfoot:
from the original article

Quote :

""The vulnerability of the military's body armor has been known since the start of the war, and is part of a series of problems that have surrounded the protection of American troops. Still, the Marine Corps did not begin buying additional plates to cover the sides of their troops until last September, when it ordered 28,800 sets, Marine officials acknowledge. "The Army, which has the largest force in Iraq, is still deciding what to purchase, according to Army procurement officials. They said the Army was deciding among various sizes of plates to give its 130,000 soldiers, adding that they hoped to issue contracts this month." "

ps this is probably a Michael Moss story. He just loves to write shit like this that makes the military look bad.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0805/jkelly082505.php3

[Edited on January 6, 2006 at 10:52 PM. Reason : jewishworldreview]

1/6/2006 10:48:16 PM

Quote :

"He just loves to write shit like this that makes the military look bad."

WHAT, LIKE "THE TRUTH"?

1/6/2006 10:51:11 PM

PS

THAT "ARTICLE" HAS TOO MANY "I"S IN IT FOR ME TO BOTHER READING IT

WHAT BLOG IS THAT FROM?

1/6/2006 10:52:50 PM

The truth is that the military has been slow to provide full-torso body armor that is difficult to design, heavy and costs a shitload.

The spin in the NY Times is that 80% of Marine deaths could have been avoided by armor that has been "available since 2003", implying that they've been sitting on that shit.

1/6/2006 10:55:50 PM

Quote :

"They said the Army was deciding among various sizes of plates to give its 130,000 soldiers, adding that they hoped to issue contracts this month.""

SO WE'RE PUTTING THE ORDER IN THIS MONTH

THAT MEANS WE'LL INVADE IN A COUPLE MONTHS, AFTER WE GET THE MATERIALS AND KNOW WHAT OUR TOLERANCES ARE?

I MEAN, DON'T TELL ME WE RUN AROUND JUST ALL WILLY NILLY

Quote :

"The spin in the NY Times"

BY "SPIN" DO YOU MEAN "FACTS"
AND BY "NY TIMES" DO YOU MEAN "PENTAGON STUDIES"

1/6/2006 10:58:59 PM

OMG 80% of murders in the ghetto could have been avoided if we fitted gang members with the Interceptor body armor!

It is just not realistic for 130,000 troops to wear this.





[Edited on January 6, 2006 at 11:10 PM. Reason : 2]

1/6/2006 11:00:28 PM

Quote :

"It is just not realistic for 130,000 troops to wear this."

Quote :

"whats wrong with someone suggesting we provide the soldiers, the ones who need it, a little more protection?""

compare/contrast

1/6/2006 11:14:41 PM

The original NY Times article in the first post is also just talking about marines; the 130,000 figure is for the army.

1/6/2006 11:16:18 PM

wait is that the armor?

If so thats kinda silly.

1/6/2006 11:20:06 PM

Here's the link to the full story:

http://tinyurl.com/csrjt

1/6/2006 11:21:49 PM

If we were closer to two pages

i'd keep going

but i'm getting tired

and this has been a fun troll

PEACE
WE OUT

1/6/2006 11:23:12 PM

its OK, I know its hard to admit defeat. just go ahead and do it. there's no shame in doing so

1/6/2006 11:26:00 PM

And suddenly the liberals are all about military spending...

Maybe if we spend enough on armor there won't be any left for bombs and guns.

1/6/2006 11:26:33 PM

Quote :

"StunninDunn (10:52:08 PM): FUEL IS MAKING IT TOO EASY ~**~burro (10:52:51 PM): well, the spidah caps don't help"

1/6/2006 11:27:29 PM

Quote :

"StunninDunn (11:26:32 PM): dammit StunninDunn (11:26:43 PM): YOU JUST SUCCESSFULLY PULLED THE RE-TROLL ~**~burro (11:26:44 PM): ~**~burro (11:26:50 PM): its so easy"

1/6/2006 11:29:04 PM

its a good thing it's cheaper to train new troops from scratch than to buy armor

1/6/2006 11:31:01 PM

at least 80% cheaper apparently

1/6/2006 11:32:01 PM

Body armor is the latest hot issue for know-nothing critics.

Like the "quagmire" on day 14 or so of the war.

You used to never see body armor in such large numbers before. If I remember correctly, the current IBA first started to come out only a few years ago. Considering how many sets the military is trying to field, this is actually quite a good development. Maybe not as far along as we would like, but when was the last time the US went to war with this level of protection for its troops? What other military in the world can offer protection like this to such a large number of people?

Body armor is still an emerging technology. In the future, it may be possible to see extremities covered, but the practicality and cost of doing it just isn't there yet. Not to mention, you would need to make it light enough to keep troops mobile, as well as cool enough to ensure people don't overheat in 120 degree heat.

Quote :

"or are you one of those "we go to war with what we have, not what we want" kind of people"

Yes, I am. I live in a real world an know that this is the case. You don't have a choice in the matter. I don't know about the rest of you people, but instead of griping and moaning about the things I can't change, I try to find a way around the roadblocks and make it happen regardless. At least, that's my personal philosophy. I may be a little odd, though.

Not to mention, the military wouldn't have body armor in large numbers to begin with if there wasn't a war going on. It's precisely BECAUSE there's a war going on that we're just now realizing that, hey, maybe we really DID need this stuff after all...


A few articles on how well the stuff really does work:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1245243
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/exports/ct_email.asp?/news/1000971.asp

I mean, look at how ineffective our body armor really is



Allahu Akbar! We destroyed a $500 armor plate! Too bad the guy we were trying to kill walked away from it...


[Edited on January 7, 2006 at 11:41 AM. Reason : .]

1/7/2006 11:37:07 AM

Quote :

"[/It is just not realistic for 130,000 troops to wear this.[quote] uh, i'm pretty sure most everyone over there wears the vest and collar portion of the interceptor system, with SAPI plates installed at least for the people in combat (the people back on post might not have the plates--just wearing the vest for protection against mortars and stuff). i've never seen pics of anyone with the upper leg or upper arm protectors. [quote]Troops get what is coming to them. They get paid to do a job with risk. They have no right to bitch when they end up on the unhappy side of chance."

look dude, we all understand that we might get killed in this line of work.

Dying sucks, though, and nobody should just write it off as "shit happens."

Quote :

" you shouldn't act as though money is no object when it comes to defending our troops. It is, and that's sad, but ignoring that reality won't improve anything."

Yep. Everyone in this thread puts a price on human life. If you disagree, you either aren't thinking about it hard enough, or you're just being dishonest with yourself.

Quote :

"or are you one of those "we go to war with what we have, not what we want" kind of people"

that's actually a pretty good policy a lot of times, speaking very generally. The military preaches the "70% Solution", and constantly operates under imperfect everything, with the idea being that it's better to outpace your enemy's "OODA Loop" (google it). Think of it in basketball terms: the US military runs kind of a Princeton offense, but at the "run and gun" pace of old skool NBA.

that said, i think we could of been doing a better job at getting the right gear to the right people. too many young soldiers and Marines are spending a lot of their own meager salaries to get the good shit.


and JerryGarcia, what reason do you have besides political exploitation of a fight in which you have minimal stake for making this thread? You've said before that you're indifferent to the plight of servicemen in Iraq, due to your opposition to the whole ordeal.

1/7/2006 5:54:25 PM

Quote :

"the practicality and cost"

its just too expensive to give everyone armor. yes sir.

1/7/2006 6:10:14 PM

for the record

i was trolling in this thread

i don't want mav and duke to be too pissed at me

1/7/2006 6:12:45 PM

1/7/2006 6:51:13 PM

Quote :

"that said, i think we could of been doing a better job at getting the right gear to the right people. too many young soldiers and Marines are spending a lot of their own meager salaries to get the good shit."

Body armor and a lot of military-related purchases are tax deductable.

Plus, units get all sorts of funds to buy stuff before they deploy--a lot of units are doing Impac card purchases and other purchases on all sorts of civilian market paramilitary gear.

[Edited on January 7, 2006 at 7:16 PM. Reason : .]

1/7/2006 7:16:24 PM

Also worth noting that this is the first time the military has given serious consideration to eye protection--favoring the Wiley-X ballistic tolerant sunglasses.

1/7/2006 7:58:53 PM

i'm fairly certain that a bullet to the eye region is gonna fuck you up, protective glasses or not

1/7/2006 9:48:06 PM

Of course, neglecting the large amount of shrapnel and stray debris usually kicked around in a firefight. Which was probably the intent.

[Edited on January 7, 2006 at 10:16 PM. Reason : .]

1/7/2006 10:16:06 PM

Quote :

"its just too expensive to give everyone armor. yes sir."

I don't know that it is (and neither do you), but it certainly could be.

Quote :

"Everyone in this thread puts a price on human life."

Exactly.

I don't see anyone in here saying, "Let's increase military spending." I don't even really see anyone in here saying, "Let's raise taxes to pay for the Iraq war." Maybe I'm missing it. But at any rate, let's see what kind of bitching would happen if we raided the education/health care/social security/other liberal program to pay for body armor. Just out of curiosity, of course.

[Edited on January 8, 2006 at 2:59 AM. Reason : ]

1/8/2006 2:57:30 AM

Cheaper to recruit and train a new soldier then spend $500 on body armor.

Yes that sounds about right.

[Edited on January 8, 2006 at 9:35 AM. Reason : 2]

1/8/2006 9:34:17 AM

theDuke866 asks me:

Quote :

" what reason do you have besides political exploitation of a fight in which you have minimal stake for making this thread? You've said before that you're indifferent to the plight of servicemen in Iraq, due to your opposition to the whole ordeal."

Well, I find it hugely ironic that those who prattle on endlessly about the necessity to "support our troops" don't really seem much concerned about keeping them alive.

I'll admit that it's nothing to me if marines get blown away in Iraq. I care about as much as I care about Crips getting killed by Bloods.

And FWIW, it looks like there's a lot more Marineburger to go around today:

Quote :

"(AP) January 08,2006 | BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A Black Hawk helicopter believed to be carrying 12 people crashed in northern Iraq and killed everyone aboard, while five U.S. Marines were slain in separate weekend attacks, the military said Sunday."

1/8/2006 11:30:18 AM

You need to get over the fact Jerry Garcia is gone and never coming back.

Marineburgers? What's wrong with you?

1/8/2006 12:15:33 PM

having worn the intercepter body armor for about a year, i can say that the extra armor that they are talking about (upper shoulders and now the adominal side armor) may have been nice to have, but its use in what i was tasked with limited.

gunners would have benefited it from it, and i did see it used, but in practical application in dismounted patrols, house searches, city block searches, standing checkpoints, palm grove searches, all possible of lasting hours in extreme heat with minimal enemy contact 90% of the time, i would have left the shoulders and side armor in the bradley or the base.

now in such hot spots that i visited, like najaf, i put on my nut protector and neck guards while i was there, and i probly would have used the extra armor if it were available. in places like fallujah, mosul and baghdad where heaving fighting is constant, body armor should be made available to those there.

but typically the military doesnt work like that, and the hardest hit areas of operation are sometimes the last to get anything nice like extra armor. you could walk around kuwait and see guys that have never heard a round fired in anger with the extra armor, but the guy in najaf would never see it till he was on his way out and passing through kuwait.

unfortunatly thats the way it sometimes works.

oh and a helicopter crash has nothing to do with body armor FYI.

1/8/2006 1:40:30 PM

nice to have?

nice to have.


NICE TO HAVE?

1/9/2006 10:58:22 AM