NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm really surprised no one has mentioned this story yet (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/politics/06cnd-armor.html?ei=5088&en=b13c10bd70ee9190&ex=1294203600&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1136617528-zfQn/tvf/9iLVBoku6/vhg). I went back four pages and saw nothing on it.

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.

For the first time, the study by the military's medical examiner shows the cost in lost lives from inadequate armor, even as the Pentagon continues to publicly defend its protection of the troops. Officials have said they are shipping the best armor to Iraq as quickly as possible. At the same time, they have maintained that it is impossible to shield forces from the increasingly powerful improvised explosive devices used by insurgents. Yet the Pentagon's own study reveals the equally lethal threat of bullets.

Now believe it or not, I'm not here to point fingers or to decry the war or any of the stuff that my right-wing Bush defending debaters probably expect. First off, credit where it's due--the military has done an incredible job of saving the lives of wounded soldiers in this war. The last I read, the ratio of wounded to killed soldiers in Iraq was running about 8 to 1, well above the ratio in any past conflict.

Here's all I want to say about this story and to my government--I don't care what you've got to do to get better armor to those soldiers. Do it. Do it now. If you've got to put a toll on the road I take to work everyday to make it happen, I don't give a shit--get it done. 80% of the Marines wounded in the upper body who died might have been saved by better armor--even if that number is twice as big as it ought to be, that's still too high to suit me.

Don't get me wrong--I'd rather they were home. But if they're going to be in Iraq, then for fuck's sake, give them the best protection we can give them.

yeah, you can be pretty much invincible if you decide to wear 50 pounds of cermaic plating around your torso and neck--but no soldier in their right mind would ever do it. too heavy, too impractical, too expensive.

yeah, you can be pretty much invincible if you decide to wear 50 pounds of cermaic plating around your torso and neck--but no soldier in their right mind would ever do it. too heavy, too impractical, too expensive.
Well, the article noted that a lot of Marines were taking their crotch protectors off and putting them under their arms to provide better protection. When men are more worried about their sides than they are their balls, then I think there's cause to believe they'd gladly wear the extra armor.

yeah, you can be pretty much invincible if you decide to wear 50 pounds of cermaic plating around your torso and neck--but no soldier in their right mind would ever do it. too heavy, too impractical, too expensive.
If it meant I had an 80% better chance of surviving I'd strap two potato bags full of turtles to me.

They'd have to be snapping turtles, though, because otherwise you're just a pussy.

increasing weight and decreasing performance mean increasing your chance of being hit by rifle fire, as well as increasing fatique and profile.

They'd have to be snapping turtles, though, because otherwise you're just a pussy.
In that case I, too, would have to go without crotch protection...

increasing weight and decreasing performance mean increasing your chance of being hit by rifle fire, as well as increasing fatique and profile.
Unless I'm 80% more likely to get hit then I believe I'm still getting a net gain.


Though I haven't 'gamed' in a while so I'm not up on the math...

Unless I'm 80% more likely to get hit then I believe I'm still getting a net gain.


Though I haven't 'gamed' in a while so I'm not up on the math...

i odn't think you very likely to get hit with rifle fire anyways, and for day to day practicality...

i odn't think you very likely to get hit with rifle fire anyways, and for day to day practicality...
In my current day to day situation, no-I'm only slightly more likely to get hit by a rifle than I am bitten by a shark. I mean, the ocean is right there, I could go right in...

In my current day to day situation, no-I'm only slightly more likely to get hit by a rifle than I am bitten by a shark. I mean, the ocean is right there, I could go right in...

...

ok?

...

ok?
Poorly worded, I'm not likely to be shot is what I'm trying to say-I live in a hippie surf town.

If the Marines are already taking off thier crotch pads to use on thier torsos, they should probably be issued the additional torso armour so that they'll stop canibalizing parts from the rest of thier kits, wouldn't you say? If they're already doing this, then they obviously want the protection. Issuing them additional armour will atleast make it so that having your crotch protected and the side of your torso protected isn't an either/or proposition, since they'll be able to have both.

The report is somewhat misleading. They can't have the mobility needed to fight the fast-paced battle with the insurgency in iraq wearing flipping full-body ceramic casts. Wearing more armor means less ammo, less fluids, more weight to carry, less endurance, and more vulnerability to heat related illnesses.


Just like the whole fuss over armoring the humvee-it's not practical. The zippy humvee is now a slow pig that has the same ground clearance as a honda pilot and accelerates poorly, plus top speed suffers. Same thing with soldiers and Marines, except they will get tired out quicker.

I would have mentioned monueverbility(Arrgh im blind sp) but i see tht has been mentioned.

If the Marines are already taking off thier crotch pads to use on thier torsos, they should probably be issued the additional torso armour so that they'll stop canibalizing parts from the rest of thier kits, wouldn't you say? If they're already doing this, then they obviously want the protection. Issuing them additional armour will atleast make it so that having your crotch protected and the side of your torso protected isn't an either/or proposition, since they'll be able to have both.
That's the point all of these people talking about "lack of maneuverability" and extra weight are missing--some of these Marines are obviously so concerned that they're taking away the pieces that protect their balls to protect their sides, the logic being, I presume, that your balls don't do you much good if you're not alive to use them. I'm guessing that they wouldn't mind the extra weight.

*smacks nazz upside the head*

nazz nazz nazz what am i gonna do with you??

how many times does rumsfeld have to say it before you believe it???

YOU GO TO WAR WITH THE ARMY YOU HAVE!



forget the part where we were the invaders and could easily have waited until our troops were properly outfitted. forget the part where we have been there for what seems to be an eternity and have had plenty of time to get the stuff we were missing at the beginning. forget the money we have wasted by overpaying for various supplies that could have gone to buying body armor "for free".

its time to stop thinking and just believe your government, dammit. you stinking liberals are making it hard for them to keep screwing up without it being noticed.

Here's all I want to say about this story and to my government--I don't care what you've got to do to get better armor to those soldiers. Do it. Do it now. If you've got to put a toll on the road I take to work everyday to make it happen, I don't give a shit--get it done. 80% of the Marines wounded in the upper body who died might have been saved by better armor--even if that number is twice as big as it ought to be, that's still too high to suit me.

Don't get me wrong--I'd rather they were home. But if they're going to be in Iraq, then for fuck's sake, give them the best protection we can give them.
Fine, don't bitch about the cost.

Yes, I'm sure many soldiers lives could have been saved if they had personal energy shields as well.

The report is somewhat misleading. They can't have the mobility needed to fight the fast-paced battle with the insurgency in iraq wearing flipping full-body ceramic casts. Wearing more armor means less ammo, less fluids, more weight to carry, less endurance, and more vulnerability to heat related illnesses.

Just like the whole fuss over armoring the humvee-it's not practical. The zippy humvee is now a slow pig that has the same ground clearance as a honda pilot and accelerates poorly, plus top speed suffers. Same thing with soldiers and Marines, except they will get tired out quicker.
We should follow the example of our ancient Celtic forefathers and fight completely naked. (well, perhaps shoes would be permitted)

We should follow the example of our ancient Celtic forefathers and fight completely naked. (well, perhaps shoes would be permitted)

No! No shoes allowed, heretic.

That's the point all of these people talking about "lack of maneuverability" and extra weight are missing--some of these Marines are obviously so concerned that they're taking away the pieces that protect their balls to protect their sides, the logic being, I presume, that your balls don't do you much good if you're not alive to use them. I'm guessing that they wouldn't mind the extra weight.
How often do people shoot at you balls?

We should follow the example of our ancient Celtic forefathers and fight completely naked. (well, perhaps shoes would be permitted)


I hope at the least we get to wear green and brown camo.

Troops disagree with the study and analyses...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060108/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_body_armor;_ylt=Am_pkifR8LS3APBbreByoP9I2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Troops disagree with the study and analyses...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060108/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_body_armor;_ylt=Am_pkifR8LS3APBbreByoP9I2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
That's a very simplistic way of describing the article you linked to, not that I'd expect anything more. The article said that some--and the emphasis here is on the some--soldiers disagreed with the study. Why should that be a shock? Frankly, it isn't a shock--I would have been suspicious if there hadn't been a difference of opinion on the study.

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.

Okay, these leaks of secret infromation have got to stop. Who the hell is guarding our secrets in Washington anymore?

Note to insurgents: aim for the sides and shoulder. If that fails shoot em in the balls.

Note to insurgents: aim for the sides and shoulder. If that fails shoot em in the balls.

from what i've heard, most are incapable of this activity you call "aiming"

I can't speak for the troops, although I think most would want the choice, at least.

Me personally, I'd take the mobility over the extra armor any day. Especially in the current situation.

Troops disagree with the study and analyses...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060108/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_body_armor;_ylt=Am_pkifR8LS3APBbreByoP9I2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
This thread isn't about gay marriage, religion or abortion. Why are you posting in it? ;)

Fine, don't bitch about the cost.
well arent you cynical.

yeah we'd bitch about our soldiers not getting the body armor they need and then complain that we have to pay for it. its way better than families having to pay for their son's and daughters body armor all by themselves.