astralis

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060107/...q_usa_armor_dc

Pentagon study faults US body armor in Iraq deaths

By Will Dunham 2 hours, 32 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Better body armor could have prevented or limited about 80 percent of fatal torso wounds suffered by Marines killed in
Iraq, a report by U.S. military medical experts obtained on Friday said.

The report, conducted for the Marine Corps by the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner and not released to the public, examined the cases of Marines fatally wounded from the start of the war in March 2003 through June 2005, and found weaknesses in the torso protective gear.

Bullets or shrapnel hit the Marines' shoulders, the sides of their torsos or other areas not fully covered by ceramic plates contained in the body armor in at least 74 of 93 fatal wounds examined in the study.

"Either a larger plate or superior protection around the plate would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," the study stated.

Critics in the U.S. Congress have accused the
Pentagon of failing to provide the best possible body armor and armored vehicles for American troops fighting in Iraq and
Afghanistan. But military officials have defended the protective gear provided for troops as well as the quality of vehicles.

The study involved Marines killed due to "a primary lethal injury of the torso," which made up near a quarter of the Marines killed in the time period involved in the study. More than 60 percent of these torso injuries were caused by small arms fire, with 38 percent due to blast injuries from explosions, the study stated.

The troops studied were among 401 Marines killed in action during the applicable time period. Researchers reviewed autopsy reports and photographic records for each injury, the study said.

'SAVING LIVES'

Army spokesman Paul Boyce said that U.S. forces have the best body armor in the world and it is "saving lives every day."

"The Army has made numerous improvements in the area of soldier-protection equipment to the outer tactical vests and to the small-arms protective inserts," said Army spokesman Paul Boyce.

"In response to the changing battlefield conditions and as new technologies emerge, the Army continues to develop improvements to soldier protection equipment to enhance survivability and mobility. We take operational security very seriously and will not discuss in public sensitive issues that may render any insight to the enemy about our capabilities, fielding plans, or tactics, techniques and procedures."

In November, the Army and Marine Corps they ordered the recall of 18,000 torso-protecting vests, some used by U.S. troops in Iraq, after determining that the body armor failed to meet ballistic specifications, but insisted troops were never put at risk. The Marines in May recalled about 5,000 other "outer tactical vests" because of questions about whether they offered adequate protection.

Christopher Kelly, spokesman for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, said the office that conducted the study performs full autopsies on all troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the evaluation of body armor "is one of many issues we address with these investigations."

"Information regarding the effectiveness of body armor has been shared with those who design and field personal protective gear," Kelly said.

More than 2,190 U.S. troops have been killed in the Iraq war and another 16,000 have been wounded in combat.

Shek

Trying to beat a dead horse. This is a dumb article with a misleading title - body armor already weights 16+ pounds and imposes some functionality changes (however, the protection provided outweights the functionality issues thus far) - there is always a tradeoff/tension between protection and weight and functionality. What was obviously a study to try and determine if changes can be made on the margin without detracting from functionality is being spun as another "the Pentagon can't tie its own shoes" article

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

dalem

What a waste of electrons and newsprint. Of course more protection would protect more.

Such buffoonery astounds me.

-dale

Shek

Based on the information given in the newspaper article, she just equipped her son with a level of protection for the front and the back of his torso that is less than what the US Army and US Marines equip, especially since new and improved plates are already being fielded that exceed the original plates that were already rated at 7.62 AP. I know that the US Army has been equipping soldiers with the DAP (Deltoid and Auxiliary Protection) ballistic add-ons for nearly 19 months - it was getting fielded just as I was leaving Iraq in June 2004. What makes me wonder is what is really driving these purchases. This is not the first time that I've seen an article about the Marine Reserves, and I don't know if the Marines just aren't fielding the equipment, which seems 100% unlikely since everybody in Iraq is issued the Interceptor Body Armor with Small Arms Protective Inserts since January 2004 (when production of the SAPI plates finally caught up), or if the Marine Reserves aren't communicating issues down to the individual level, or if the reservists are jumping the gun because of newspaper reporting like this that hypes an issue without providing the real facts.

Shek

New York Times on the Web
January 8, 2006

U.S. Soldiers Question Use Of More Armor


BEIJI, Iraq (AP) -- 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.

The unreleased study examined 93 fatal wounds to Marines from the start of the Iraq war in March 2003 through June 2005. It concluded 74 of them were bullet or shrapnel wounds to shoulders or torso areas unprotected by traditional ceramic armor plating.

Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade ''Rakkasans'' are required to wear an array of protective clothing they refer to as their ''happy gear,'' ranging from Kevlar drapes over their shoulders and sides, to knee pads and fire-resistant uniforms.

But many soldiers say they feel encumbered by the weight and restricted by fabric that does not move as they do. They frequently joke as they strap on their equipment before a patrol, and express relief when they return and peel it off.

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.

According to a summary of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's study obtained Friday evening by The Associated Press, the 93 Marines who died from a primary lethal injury of the torso were among 401 Marines who died from combat injuries in Iraq between the start of the war and June 2005.

A military advocacy group, Soldiers for Truth, posted an article about the study on its Web site this week. On Friday evening, The New York Times reported in its online edition that the study for the first time shows the cost in lives lost from inadequate armor.

Autopsy reports and photographic records were analyzed to help the military determine possible body armor redesign.

Of 39 fatal torso wounds in which the bullet or shrapnel entered the Marine's body outside of the ceramic armor plate protecting the chest and back, 31 were close to the plate's edge, according to the study, which was conducted last summer.

Some soldiers felt unhappy that ceramic plates to protect their sides and shoulders were available, but not offered, when they deployed for Iraq in September.

''If it's going to protect a soldier or save his life, they definitely should have been afforded the opportunity to wear it,'' said Staff Sgt. Shaun Benoit, 26, of Conneaut, Ohio. ''I want to know where there was a break in communication.''

Others questioned the effectiveness of additional body armor.

''It's the Army's responsibility to get soldiers the armor they need. But that doesn't mean those deaths could have been prevented,'' said Spc. Robert Reid, 21, of Atlanta.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who was in Iraq on Saturday, said military leaders told him that body armor has improved since the initial invasion in 2003 and that the military hoped to gradually transition to the improved armor.

The debate between protection versus mobility has dominated military doctrine since the Middle Ages, when knights wrapped themselves in metal suits for battle, said Capt. Jamey Turner, 35, of Baton Rouge, La., a commander in the 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment.

The issue comes up daily on the battlefield in Iraq, and soldiers need to realize there is no such thing as 100 percent protection, he said.

''You've got to sacrifice some protection for mobility,'' he added. ''If you cover your entire body in ceramic plates, you're just not going to be able to move.''

Others in the regiment said the issue of protecting soldiers with more body armor is of greater concern at home than among soldiers in Iraq, who have seen firsthand how life and death hang on a sliver of luck when an improvised explosive device hits a Humvee.

''These guys over here are husbands, sons and daughters. It's understandable people at home would want all the protection in the world for us. But realistically, it just don't work,'' said Sgt. Paul Hare, 40, of Tucumcari, N.M.

AP Military Writer Robert Burns in Washington contributed to this report.

Shek

Here's a link that describes the characteristics of IBA, SAPI, and DAP.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh/138.pdf

Shek

I'd love it if someone would go back into the Congressional record and see if any congressmen in committee killed amendments or voted against any armored HMMWVs or personal body armor pre-9/11.

Anon

"Allah may be great, but US interceptor armor is better".
~M21Sniper in a PM conversation with Shek.

Shek

I'll have to try and pull up that video again - but I do agree, your quote was classic

Shek

Washington Post
January 12, 2006
Pg. 14

More Body Armor Is On The Way For U.S. Troops

By Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post Staff Writer

The Army announced yesterday that it will soon start producing 230,000 sets of side armor plates and field them over the year to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, after a recently disclosed Pentagon study indicated that such plates could have helped prevent scores of troop deaths since 2003.

The Marine Corps has delivered 9,000 sets of the plates to Iraq, a number that will rise to about 30,000 by April, officials said yesterday. Each set of plates, together with a carrier and soft armor, costs about $450 and weighs about seven pounds, the officials said.

Army and Marine generals in charge of developing and buying equipment defended the pace at which they were getting the new side armor to troops, after a closed-door briefing yesterday on the matter on Capitol Hill. The generals briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee after lawmakers voiced concern over a classified Pentagon forensic study disclosed last week that for the first time linked gaps in upper torso protection to troop fatalities.

The scrutiny of body armor is the latest instance in which Congress has pressured the Pentagon to accelerate the distribution of protective equipment to U.S. troops -- from "uparmored" Humvees and trucks to bulletproof vests. More than 2,200 American troops have died in Iraq since March 2003, 1,741 of them in combat, according to Pentagon figures as of yesterday.

The forensic study of 401 Marines who died in combat in Iraq from March 2003 to June 2005 showed that 21 died primarily from injuries to the side of their torsos. The study, completed in August 2005 by the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, concluded that those Marines might have benefited from improved protection, such as that offered by the side plates. The findings, if applied to all U.S. combat casualties, suggest that scores of deaths might have been prevented if the new side plates had been worn.

The Marine Corps finalized contracts for the production of the side plates in mid-September and production began six weeks later, with distribution starting in November, said Col. Shawn Reinwald, director for combat equipment at the Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va. The Marine Corps commandant decided on the need for side plates in June, he said.

The Army also identified a requirement for the side plates in the past year, when Army truck drivers running convoys in Iraq asked for them, Maj. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sorenson, the Army's acquisition chief, told reporters. The Army took a design created by a commander in Iraq, minimized the plates' weight and this week determined the optimal size, according to Maj. Gen. Stephen M. Speakes, director of force development for the Army. "It's a great success," Speakes said.

The generals said the side plates are the most recent in a series of body armor upgrades that have improved the likelihood of survival for U.S. troops. But they stressed that the added armor has drawbacks because it can limit troops' mobility and raise body temperature -- a major consideration, given the 130-degree heat in which forces are fighting.

"We don't want a medieval knight. We are not going to be hoisted onto a horse," Speakes said. "All of this is a very difficult trade-off. How much is adequate?"

As a result, the new armor will be supplied to all troops, but commanders will decide case by case whether the mission requires them to wear it, Army and Marine officials said.

RustyBattleship

When I was in the Army Reserves back in the 50's and 60's, my only body armor was the hull of the M-41 Walker tank I was driving. Though body armor of some sort or another has been around for many years, we only read about it and it was never issued to us nor were we ever given any training in how to get it, don it and use it.

When discussions of body armor come up, I always remember that scene in Audie Murphy's biographical movie "To Hell and Back" when the M-4 Sherman tank comes up to support his platoon (in real life it was an M-18 tank destroyer and Murphy was ticked off because none were left to use in his movie for accuracy and he had to settle for a Sherman).

In that scene some of the infantrymen climb up on the tank and admire its protective armor. The tank commander says, "It's not really that good. It's only two inches thick." Jack Kelly, playing an infantryman, pulls on his lapel and asks, "How thick do you think this shirt is?"

Yes, I'm glad our troops are being issued body armor and the Humvees are getting extra plating (at $350.00 a pound). But let's go back to post Rhine crossing WW II tactics and ask the Burgermeister where the "insurgents" are hiding out, getting their meals, going to the toilet, cleaning their weapons, catching some shut eye, etc. If the answer is "I don't know", back the tanks off to 1,000 yards from town open fire on any structure that may hold a sniper. After you level a couple of towns like that, the city councils of towns after that will be more than happy to point out where every sniper or RPG unit is.

Shek

That's a self-defeating tactic.