Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Silat on January 06, 2006, 06:18:27 PM
-
My leaders told me that they were on top of this issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/politics/06cnd-armor.html?hp&ex=1136610000&en=cba30b2ab5b558f5&ei=5094&partner=homepage
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.
-
I really don't like playing this card but it has become clear to me that the NYtimes is no more reliable or less biased than NEWSMAX.
Not saying I don't care about this issue, it is real important to me considering how many deaths have been caused by IEDs in Iraq.
PS, not to excuse the issue but to a Marine it sound's normal. Marines usually get Army "handmedowns"
EDIT2:
Ok having read the article it seems like a bunch of common sense to me. Pentagon did a study sample of 100 troops. Found that 80% of them could have been saved by extra torso armor. The USMC not waiting for the data ordered more armor.
The Army not wanting to impede current production set out a study to determine what they can do.
It seems the NYtimes has a higher security clearance than me.
-
Just playing devils-advocate, but extra armor also decreases mobility, so in some situations it could have caused more casualties. There is more than one side to any story, but to sell newspapers and magazines, an article has to put some spin on the truth to make it interesting.
It sounds heartless, but you go to war with the equipment, tactics, and forces you have at the time. As the lessons are learned, you adapt to the situation by improving everything from equipment to tactics.
There is no magic "armor tree", and our budget is finite. What else would have had to be cut to try to speed up armor production? The new generation of tactical radios? The new up-armored humvees? The shorter versions of the M-16 that are necessary to be able to fight from within vehicles?
War sucks and armchair quarterbacks that don't have to actually make the decisions or fight are usually worthless sacks of crap with an agenda. As soon as they come up with the crystal ball that turns them into the perfect military strategists and long-range planners, they can run everything. Until then, second-guessing of this type is a sure sign of someone with a personal agenda, not someone who actually gives a crap about the troops or the war.
Don't get me wrong, it's valuable to look back and dig out the lessons that need to be learned, but those jerkwads pointing fingers and trying to pin down blame for combat casualties are not doing it out of interest for the troops. They're looking for a good story to sell papers, or trying to make someone look bad while making themselves look prescient. Well, 20/20 hindsight makes it pretty easy to second-guess decisions other people made...
"declined to make it available"... Right. There are roving packs of Generals in the pentagon laughing about the suckers in the desert because they're not going to get sent the secret warehouses full of body armor we magically produced "since 2003". The real story is more along the lines of a prototype was developed in 2003 but it cost about a million bucks per vest because there were no factories set up to produce the new materials and design. Funding the new design took 6 months because you can't get anything approved outside of the budget cycle, and ramping up production started half a year later.
Anyone remember the story about the brand new armor that went out, that ended up failing the military QC tests? They rushed that stuff to the field and it even saved lives, but it didn't actually meet the performance specs in the contract because it was rushed to the field.
Yea, they're laughing it up at the pentagon about how they sure fooled all those grunts in Iraq who thought their superiors gave a damn about them... For their next trick, they're going to stop sending bullets or maybe halt the delivery of shoelaces.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I really don't like playing this card but it has become clear to me that the NYtimes is no more reliable or less biased than NEWSMAX.
Not saying I don't care about this issue, it is real important to me considering how many deaths have been caused by IEDs in Iraq.
PS, not to excuse the issue but to a Marine it sound's normal. Marines usually get Army "handmedowns"
Either they care about the troops or they dont. They say they do but it seems they dont..
This admin has played the card that the dems didnt care about the troops but from what Ive seen and read over the course of this admin is that it is they that dont care...They talk a good talk though.................... They have certainly convinced their supporters that they walk on water..:)
-
Originally posted by Silat
Either they care about the troops or they dont. They say they do but it seems they dont..
This admin has played the card that the dems didnt care about the troops but from what Ive seen and read over the course of this admin is that it is they that dont care...They talk a good talk though.................... They have certainly convinced their supporters that they walk on water..:)
supporters that think they walk on water are few and far between, if you meet one let me know.
Political jabs out of the way, having worked for the pentagon in various capacities for the last 10 years of my life I can say that nothing at all moves quickly.
The US alone can only manufacture so much armor. In order to manufacter other plates they may have to slow down on breast and back plates wich could mean less overal protection rather than more wich is the intent of the new armor to begin with.
It seems that the article doesn't quite make your case and in fact throws it out the window. If the pentagon didn't care why would they (specifically the Marines who have the smallest budget) spend $100k + to determine if more is needed?
-
Originally posted by Silat
Either they care about the troops or they dont. They say they do but it seems they dont..
what load of crap...
right, the admin "does not care" about our boys.. if the comment weren't so stupid, it might even be funny...
-
It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. - General Robert E. Lee
-
Extra body armor will prevent more injuries than less body armor?
-
RPM
You've hit on it! Wow, why didn't anyone else think of that? :)
More armor = less injuries. Damn. A genius, you are.
(haha just foolin don't be mad)
-
Originally posted by rpm
Extra body armor will prevent more injuries than less body armor?
Congrat's Mr. Obvious :aok
joking aside, you do have to consider production capacity. If extra armor cuts into other production, extra armor might mean less armor in more critical areas.
WOA new emoticon.....just saw it!
:t
-
I mean it's a stupid study. Of course more armor will prevent injuries. That is not the root of the problem. It lies in the entire process of getting the armor on the soldier.
It starts with poor planning, not having put it in standard issue to begin with. Then the procurement process has it's own tangled web of red tape to weave thru. Then testing, retesting and redesign followed by more testing. Next funding drags it's feet thru Congress with pork being flung onto the bill like dead on a cart during the plague.
Finally, it begins production and makes it into the field... 2 years later.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I mean it's a stupid study. Of course more armor will prevent injuries. That is not the root of the problem. It lies in the entire process of getting the armor on the soldier.
It starts with poor planning, not having put it in standard issue to begin with. Then the procurement process has it's own tangled web of red tape to weave thru. Then testing, retesting and redesign followed by more testing. Next funding drags it's feet thru Congress with pork being flung onto the bill like dead on a cart during the plague.
Finally, it begins production and makes it into the field... 2 years later.
yup that's about how it works.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I mean it's a stupid study. Of course more armor will prevent injuries. That is not the root of the problem. It lies in the entire process of getting the armor on the soldier.
It starts with poor planning, not having put it in standard issue to begin with. Then the procurement process has it's own tangled web of red tape to weave thru. Then testing, retesting and redesign followed by more testing. Next funding drags it's feet thru Congress with pork being flung onto the bill like dead on a cart during the plague.
Finally, it begins production and makes it into the field... 2 years later.
What was that explanation the Rodney Dangerfeild used in the movie "back to school" when he was explaining real world economics to the economics professor?
All kidding aside.
It takes time from the point where production starts to the point where distribution can be made. For a variety of reasons. Including the ones given by RPM.
The Media would have us beleive that because production on something may have started on say June 22nd 2004. It should have been made available to everyone that wants/needs one by June 23rd 2004.
It just dont work that way
-
Here is the thing though with tough body armor vs. an IED, so you survive, the armor prevents major damage to your organs but without your limbs, and blind.
-
Well, I'd hate to throw a wrench in the works here, but I won't believe anything from the NY Times unless I see this "Secret" study.
-
and how much body armor does the enemy have? come on, lets fight fair.
-
I suppose if the NYT had its way, every soldier in Iraq could have been encased in a 300 pound titanium suit of armor by now.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I suppose if the NYT had it's way, every soldier in Iraq could have been encased in a 300 pound titanium suit of armor by now.
no more like president Bush would have been executed and then stuffed and placed on display in their lobby.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
what load of crap...
right, the admin "does not care" about our boys.. if the comment weren't so stupid, it might even be funny...
Talk about thin skinned. This board has seen numerous attacks on dems and those that dont like Bush. And you can search your own comments to verify what Im saying.
These attacks were on many occasions aimed at the lack of patriotism and support of the troops.
So does your comment just mean that you can give it but cant take it?
-
My buddy just got back from a tour and he had body armor.
He hated wearing it, so he didn't wear most, maybe only the vest.
Extra armor solves nothing.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Talk about thin skinned. This board has seen numerous attacks on dems and those that dont like Bush. And you can search your own comments to verify what Im saying.
These attacks were on many occasions aimed at the lack of patriotism and support of the troops.
So does your comment just mean that you can give it but cant take it?
Considering you posted this thread to show somehow that the administration doesn't actually care about the troops even though the article referenced in this thread clearly shows planning, studies, and procurment that go completly against your argurmen......yea I'd say it's laughable ;)
-
Were these casualities in house to house or sniper/roadside attacks?
If it's house to house would not of helped, probally would of killed them sooner.
If it's from traveling and ambush attacks, perhaps..
They should be allowed to have what ever they want over there in the way of weapons and armor.
-
Silat, I like you and all, but sometimes I really shake my head when I see some of your political postings.
As someone previously posted, its a trade off between armor and weight/mobility.
Its as silly as accusing FDR of killing our bomber and fighter pilots during WWII for not putting more armor in their aircraft. Who cares if they would of been slower and unable to manuver, statistics show everything.
-
For example. we could of sent them to the field with this.
(http://www.bulletproofme.com/Images/Bomb%20Suit%20EOD.jpg)
What is the use if they can't function in a urban envoirnment because of a lack of mobility?
I'd like to see futher studies taking mobilty, heat, weight, and casulties into play.
-
"For example..."
Is that the armour they're speaking of or are you just trying to be smart?
Why not let the troops to decide if they want to wear additional armour or not?
-
Can't let the troops decide everything Staga... Some of them would go into battle wearing little more than shorts and a baseball cap worn sideways. Sometimes troops gotta be TOLD.
-
I don't know how it's in US but we had service regulations stating what to wear and how.
However our officers also had a right to make little alterations depending the circumstances; we didn't had to ask from headquarters what to wear.
Some decisions should be made at low level where people actually know the circumstances and IMHO wearing bit more protective bodyarmor is one of those.
Oh and if someone would like to enter a battle wearing just a baseball cap and shorts I think he would learn thinking otherwise even before leaving the barracks; as far as I remember army is good enforcing dicipline in its ranks.
At least in here.
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Its as silly as accusing FDR of killing our bomber and fighter pilots during WWII for not putting more armor in their aircraft. Who cares if they would of been slower and unable to manuver, statistics show everything.
Well put... maybe he'll see it now.
-
Isn't it hot over there? How much mobility and dehydration are you willing to put up with? How much easier a target is a man who can't move well?
The battle between armor and weapons that will penetrate it is an old one. The weapons allways win tho.
lazs
-
What's the problem Lazs?
I thought you hated centralizing making decisions; why don't you like the idea of letting troops and their officers decide themself?
Or are you saying all decisions should made in HQ (like in Washington) even if squad leaders and officers (like states) would know better the circumstances they are operating?
Are you perhaps a democrat? :rofl
-
btw I can't see them thinking about making troops to wear mineproof equipments but additional armor covering bit more than standard vest.
If you know how much does it weight and how much it'll limit the ability to move please tell us too.
That's why troops should decide themself; if the mission needs good movement and agility then leave the armor to the barracks but if it's just standing at the road block or in the hatch of a humvee then some extra weight isn't that big deal especially if it could save your life.
Feel free to disagree but IMHO the decision should be left to the troops; they know best the circumstances in the field.
-
staga... I have said many times that the only thing the government should do is raise an army. An army is neither democrat or republican...
War is costly and wasteful of money and lives. War is historically a record of the wrong equipment and supplies and bad decisions... all second guessed by people looking the whole thing over after it has happened allready.
No.. I don't think the troops should be able to decide what equipment they use... not at first anyway. How would they know? Veteran outfits should get a little more slack. Most combat outfits do have more choice in equiment or... have in the past.. at least in the field. Wearing a boonie hat instead of a kevlar helmet might work better in some situations for instance in the field. You can't give the option tho or you might see huge increases in casualties.... you can "look the other way" with some veteran field outfits.
New troops should not be able to decide what equipment they will take.
-
Ah so now it's "New troops should not be able to decide what equipment they will take"?
How about giving that option to the troops who have already served in Afghanistan or in Iraq?
btw do you think an officers who has been in army for 10-15 years doesn't know what's best for his troops?
-
Well... I don't think it is possible for the military to be structured the way you like...
The best we can achieve is the historical comprimise.... new troops loaded down with every thing that someone like silat comes up with and being snickered at by the vets and old vets stripping down and re equiping for the field while those in charge look the other way.
Probly letting everyone decide right off the boat would not work out too well.
lazs
-
We have the ability to win this war without shedding a single drop of friendly blood or civilian blood. We are so radically technoligically advanced, we can locate and find each enemy combatant and remove them from existance, giving them the promise of martyrdom they so strongly desire.
But, we can't. We are a Nice Country. We can't send snipers over, that wouldn't be fair. We can't send covert opps, the poor guys wouldn't stand a chance. No, we need to send over our troops over with rules and conditions and be civilized. We need to play by the same rules Libs use to fight crime. Beat up the Cops, they were mean to the criminals. We need to squirm and wiggle and wring our hands over the Cost of the war and how many homeless we can't feed because we are in this war. Guess What, you want to complain about the Cost? Things Get Cut! They don't have Body Armor?? YOU Cut The Money Lew! You did this. This nation didn't want a huge army, that would Scare our Neighbors in the world. Cut the Military, Close em up, shut em down. We lost McClellan and Mather here in Sacramento. How many bases were axed? How many times do we hear Your Left Whining about the Cost of the War? Then you have the Gall to Complain that they didn't have Armor? You Took The Resources Away! No Armor, OK, give them armor, we need to meet your budget, what do we Take Instead? Who are YOU to make that determination? WE Want the biggest, baddest, most butt kicking military On The Planet so No One messes with us. We could easily have this, hell we have it now IN SPITE of your left leaning weak kneed pansy assed Liberal friends trying their darndest to make Kofi happy.
But with all the cuts and restrictions, with all the crying about Our Men and Women who Volunteered to go, and are Volunteering to GO BACK, we have lost fewer people Voluntarily over the past few years than we lost when those dirty SOBs fell 2 towers in 1 single day.
You want the military to not lose a life? Let Them Work and Get Off Their Backs! Shut the hell up about wire taps, we know where they are, let us GET THEM instead of whining about How we get them. You want them to stop shooting at our soldiers? Let them Stop Them. Don't complain about the cost of the war then have the Gall to whine that they don't have the resources. Don't even Think about comparing No Armor to lack of caring for the soldiers. You know Damn Well that if "We" had our way, they would be so shockingly powerful that this war would have been over years ago, we would have rooted them all out, laid waste to them, and been on our way back to our concerns. YOU don't Want that, it's too messy. So let the pro's do their job unrestricted by political BS for crying out loud. This line of argument and reasoning is just a Total Joke.
-
Ok
I've done two tours this year.... first at Baghdad, and currently at Bagram.
On body armor. I've yet to see (at either location) a single soldier going in or out the wire without body armor. My own observations lead me to believe there's something stinky about any statement referring to troops not having the appropriate and required equiptment. I would imagine the problem might localized and "could possibly" be traced back to a lazy S-4 officer, but hey, thats just me. Here in Afghanistan, I LIVE outside the wire... and have yet to observe any lack of body armor (although I thought I was going to have to shoot someone to get a pair of decent mountain boots).
The stuff we have works... I'm sure most have seen the films floating around the internet, and I've seen the results of an IED incident in which 1 guy out of 3 decided to billy-badass his butt around without his armor... not pretty. The stuff we have is also major pain in the butt to wear. It's bulky, hot, uncomfortable, weighs something like 30lbs, and sometimes, (occasionally) folks just aren't going to put it on unless someone is around to make them. Yes indeed... we have the greatest fighting force in the world, but that doesn't mean there aren't a few knuckle-draggers in the ranks.
IMHO... we are WAY behind where we could be with body armor. When we aren't (or weren't) at war, we "could" have been preparing, but we don't do that do we? When Rummy was questioned publicly on the up-armored HMMWV issue, he answered using the average U.S. of Amuricin's peacetime thought process. The "flak-vest" that was so prevalent prior to 01 (and in my case, at least back to 1986) was a complete joke and anyone and everyone with an IQ above 10 knew it. That's allot of time to fix an apparent problem. Now we have what we need, it's just a pain to wear. I'm sure "they" could, or maybe are, working on thinner, lighter ballistic plates and figuring ways to make it wear in such a way your not dehydrated and suffering from back pain come Miller time, but it's not THEIR fault they're late, it's ours.
Tumor
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Well... I don't think it is possible for the military to be structured the way you like...
The best we can achieve is the historical comprimise.... new troops loaded down with every thing that someone comes up with and being snickered at by the vets and old vets stripping down and re equiping for the field while those in charge look the other way.
Probly letting everyone decide right off the boat would not work out too well.
lazs
I took the heavy plates out of the huge jacket-like vest they came with and stuck them in a nice little made-to-fit contraption that works out rather nicely. Don't have near the fragmentation protection but the major organ areas are protected. Get some wierd looks from the guys at the gates when I roll out but haven't heard a word. :)
-
Thanks Tumor for your post, and for being there
.
Body armor is continually being developed, but whatever is developed will take a while to get down to those who need it. I've heard about ceramic scale armor, spider silk, and nano-tech among others. The bottom line will always be, the bottom line - $$.
Is that a plate-carrier you're talking about? I've read folks have different ways of dealing with the weight of the plates and yet maintaining some overall torso protection via soft armor. Are you registered at Lightfighter.net? It's a forum where lots of your brothers-in-arms hang out and is dedicated to sharing experiences with gear.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I mean it's a stupid study. Of course more armor will prevent injuries. That is not the root of the problem. It lies in the entire process of getting the armor on the soldier.
It starts with poor planning, not having put it in standard issue to begin with. Then the procurement process has it's own tangled web of red tape to weave thru. Then testing, retesting and redesign followed by more testing. Next funding drags it's feet thru Congress with pork being flung onto the bill like dead on a cart during the plague.
Finally, it begins production and makes it into the field... 2 years later.
One thing you must think about is wearability, which can't be calculated or estimated. They gotta put it on somebody to test it over time. More ceramic=more weight, and the troops are already carrying quite a load.
For good or ill, the pentagon buys this stuff for the long haul. It will be tested, retested, and evaluated until the cows come home, then (maybe) procured. It's the way the system works.
-
Originally posted by mauser
Is that a plate-carrier you're talking about? I've read folks have different ways of dealing with the weight of the plates and yet maintaining some overall torso protection via soft armor. Are you registered at Lightfighter.net? It's a forum where lots of your brothers-in-arms hang out and is dedicated to sharing experiences with gear.
Thanks mauser... I suppose "Plate-carrier" would be an accurate description. It's basically a simply designed cloth compartment for each plate held together by a couple shoulder straps, and a couple velcro straps that hold the bottom of the front and back in place. In my particular situation, I'm more worried about a bullet than shrapnel... so there ya go.
Never heard of Lightfither.net , I'll check it out.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Don't have near the fragmentation protection but the major organ areas are protected. Get some wierd looks from the guys at the gates when I roll out but haven't heard a word. :)
Knowing you Tumor, the first thing I thought of when I read this was that you doubled up the armor in the groin area :)
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Silat, I like you and all, but sometimes I really shake my head when I see some of your political postings.
As someone previously posted, its a trade off between armor and weight/mobility.
Its as silly as accusing FDR of killing our bomber and fighter pilots during WWII for not putting more armor in their aircraft. Who cares if they would of been slower and unable to manuver, statistics show everything.
My grandfather was a Marine from 43-46 and until his passing in 1998, NEVER Forgave FDR for one thing. Sending 3 Marine Divisions to ETO. He never cussed in his life, but when brought up, you were waiting for him to.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Silat, I like you and all, but sometimes I really shake my head when I see some of your political postings.
As someone previously posted, its a trade off between armor and weight/mobility.
Its as silly as accusing FDR of killing our bomber and fighter pilots during WWII for not putting more armor in their aircraft. Who cares if they would of been slower and unable to manuver, statistics show everything.
Del I like you too..
Over the course of the Bush years the hypocrisy of these boards by the supporters of this admin has been legendary.
My post was sarcastic in the extreme and look at the response.
You didnt find it ridiculous when the Bush supporters on this board blamed unarmored Humvees on Clinton. Or blaming poorly equipped soldiers on Clinton and the dems. All the militarys ills have been blamed on those dems because they are not supporters of the troops.
Now that another report ( non partisan) appears after 4 years of war we see this type of response from the admins supporters... When does this admin get to take responsibility for anything?
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Knowing you Tumor, the first thing I thought of when I read this was that you doubled up the armor in the groin area :)
I thought about it, but then I figure I'm deployed so much I don't get a chance to use that stuff much anyway :)
Tumor
-
Originally posted by Silat
Del I like you too..
You didnt find it ridiculous when the Bush supporters on this board blamed unarmored Humvees on Clinton. Or blaming poorly equipped soldiers on Clinton and the dems. All the militarys ills have been blamed on those dems because they are not supporters of the troops.
It's Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton's fault. :) Don't blame the guy who's fixing it :eek:
Tumor
P.S. Hey Lew, email me your phone# (Yahoo addy). Heading back out today, I'll give ya a call from there
-
The people that broke the story (picked up by NYT) are the Soldiers for the Truth crowd (SFTT/Defense Watch - a good cause to contribute to if you can spare the change...), the late Hackworth's old organization. They have been covering this for a while. Better armor was availiable, but the perfumed princes and their corporate cronies did another lets retire in style deal. The data they use comes from the Marines, who are shopping for a new solution.
The "Marine Lethal Torso Injuries: Preliminary Findings 8/29/2005" was reportedly made to identify current weaknesses in the product, which was designed and fielded in the nearly billion-dollar joint US Army-USMC Interceptor program that created the controversial body armor. Critics of the Interceptor body armor system complain it is bulky, poorly made, limits mobility, and incorporates a design that leaves the wearer vulnerable to gunshot and shrapnel wounds over large areas of the upper torso to limit production costs.
And, why not? Because we have proof, from the US Marine Corps study in this case, from the government's own files that the Perfumed Princes know now, and have known for substantial time, that America's Grunts have been sent into combat with inferior body armor -- that hundreds have died, who very likely would have been saved, had they been issued the best-available body armor!
This is not a procurement scandal along the lines of the $600 toilet seat that lit up the US Air Force like a bolt of lightening decades ago.
This is a procurement scandal where those most precious from our midst, those willing to fight and die for this great nation, have been knowingly, premeditatedly and cold-heartedly sent into harm's way with inferior equipment that literally meant the several hundred who could have/should have come home carrying their shields, where instead carried home upon those shields.
Is there a fire in hell hot enough for the callous, timid bureaucratic weasels -- both those in uniform and those in civilian dress -- who deprived our warriors of the best-available body armor? I think not.
Oh, and while I consign to the fires of Hades those who sat quietly while their defenders were consigned to roll the lethal dice with the Grim Reaper, let me not forget those in the US Congress who contributed by their willful dereliction of duty. Among this group, John Murtha stands out by virtue of the rank hypocrisy of his recent comments and actions.
It is good enough body armor that nine American generals in Afghanistan are wearing it in place of the standard "Interceptor OTV" armor issued to the troops they command. It offers such great protection that the U.S. Secret Service agents guarding the President of the United States wear it, and it is good enough that a civilian contractor in Iraq was shot eight times in the torso at close range and survived without even suffering soft tissue trauma. But the same armor, already in mass production, is apparently too expensive to provide to the men and women fighting and dying in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) every day.
http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpDefense&htmlCategoryID=29&htmlId=4493
http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpDefense&htmlCategoryID=30&htmlId=4459
http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpIntel&htmlId=4497
http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpArchives&archives=defense&htmlId=4252&HtmlCategoryID=30
http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpArchives&archives=defense&htmlId=4009&HtmlCategoryID=30
http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpArchives&archives=defense&htmlId=4193&HtmlCategoryID=30
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
This is a procurement scandal where those most precious from our midst, those willing to fight and die for this great nation, have been knowingly, premeditatedly and cold-heartedly sent into harm's way with inferior equipment that literally meant the several hundred who could have/should have come home carrying their shields, where instead carried home upon those shields.
Charon
Is there any actual proof of the premeditation?
-
I know that there is some better street armor for police that is lighter and more effective but is not certified (threat level) and is not allowed to be used by our police... it would have saved lives too.
lazs
-
This is a procurement scandal where those most precious from our midst, those willing to fight and die for this great nation, have been knowingly, premeditatedly and cold-heartedly sent into harm's way with inferior equipment that literally meant the several hundred who could have/should have come home carrying their shields, where instead carried home upon those shields.
Charon
First of all, that's not my quote that's an editorial response from SFTT editor Roger Charles: http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpDefense&htmlCategoryID=29&htmlId=4493
He's obviously worked up about American soldiers dying because their lives were worth only about $1000 to DoD/Congress, you me, etc. compared to $5000. Obviously, not everybody values the lives of American soldiers the same way. Me, I agree with him. I say ****can 2 or 3 F22s to keep 100 grunts from needlessly bleeding out on a battlfield. Worth every ****ing penny. Others don't agree.
Budget decisions are premediated by nature. Roger Charles attacks the budget decsions (to include members of congress of all stripes) and the "old boy" network that gets us so little value on the tax $. Cheapest products, design flaws, good old boy relationships thrown in. Read the links. In fact, if you have any questions ask him directly:
SFTT President Roger Charles is an Annapolis graduate, a retired USMC Lt. Col. who commanded an infantry platoon in I Corps during the Vietnam War, is the winner of the prestigious Peabody Award for news coverage, and was a protégée's of the late Col. David H. Hackworth. Rog can be contacted at sfttpres@aol.com. Please send comments to DWFeedback@yahoo.com.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Silat
Del I like you too..
Over the course of the Bush years the hypocrisy of these boards by the supporters of this admin has been legendary.
My post was sarcastic in the extreme and look at the response.
You didnt find it ridiculous when the Bush supporters on this board blamed unarmored Humvees on Clinton. Or blaming poorly equipped soldiers on Clinton and the dems. All the militarys ills have been blamed on those dems because they are not supporters of the troops.
Now that another report ( non partisan) appears after 4 years of war we see this type of response from the admins supporters... When does this admin get to take responsibility for anything?
As somone who served under clinton I can say this. We were underfunded and over worked. Iraq has taken it's toll but of course we are conducting major combat operations. The clinton admin striped the defense budget while increasing deployments 300% vrs the previous one.
This isn't a scandle this is how the military works. This is how it has allways worked. There is no hypocracy here. It's not as if there's data that's being ignored. The military conducts study after study after study. ANd when they are done studying they conduct even more tests. Then they look at production capabilities and compare it with what the budget can offer them. It's a long drawn out process. Allways has been, allways will be.
-
Charon is your position that you're incensed that the Defense Department can't buy everything they want and has to make decisions to reduce costs somewhere?
And they bought a cheaper vest than one that was:
1) Equally available for production in the same quantities as the Interceptor in the same time frames
2) Provided greater protection
3) Was not chosen based on cost alone?
Is that the case you present using Charles as your source?
If so, if they HAD bought the better vest by canceling two F-22's and in some later conflict a lack of F-22's cost us 10,000 lives when a bomber got through and nuked a division... what would you say then?
Yeah, it's a stretch of a hypothesis, but it could happen. DoD has to consider all that kind of stuff too.
What do you think about Congress giving DoD a much, much larger budget?
-
And they bought a cheaper vest than one that was:
1) Equally available for production in the same quantities as the Interceptor in the same time frames
2) Provided greater protection
3) Was not chosen based on cost alone?
Is that the case you present using Charles as your source?
It's a long story Toad. Read the links and give me your feed back on the content. Think Mark 14 Torpedo of WW2 with some beltway/Pentagon twists. Point 2 is clearly Yes. Point 3 is a case of cost and "pet project" with some questionable procurement practices after the flaws started to come to light. My impression on point 1. is that they were all in the same boat production wise before the tax dollars started to flow, but that may not be the case.
If so, if they HAD bought the better vest by canceling two F-22's and in some later conflict a lack of F-22's cost us 10,000 lives when a bomber got through and nuked a division... what would you say then?
I would say that Americans are dying right now, with no hypotheticals involved. And most powers that could get a bomber through our air defenses with a nuke would be a bit worried about the vaporization of their population centers should they do so. How many vests would a $2 billion Virginia class attack sub buy at $5000 ea?
A big issue is that the grunt really doesn't have too many well paid lobbiests in Washington to fight it out in the budget for the low cost, low tech day-to-day survival stuff. SFTT fills that role somewhat, and that's why I contribute to them for my charitable giving.
What do you think about Congress giving DoD a much, much larger budget?
I would rather have serious oversight of the procurement process, and the removal of any "incentives" that may encourage the military decision makers to make decisions based on their next "post military" career. Perhaps prohibit working for defense contractors if you have held procurement-related staffing positions. Not uncommon even in civilian business to have similar non competitive clauses. It's not like a General or Bird Col. has to go on food stamps when they step down. You could also discuss line item vetos and bill riders etc. to cut the pork out of Congress -- but that another, much bigger discussion.
I would like the US Taxpayer to get better than the $ .50 on the dollar I imagine they get out of Washington. How many "cents on the dollar" of true value do you think we got out of the $ billions thrown at Iraq and Homeland Security, etc. ? How many vests does that represent? This isn't a partisanship issue, plenty of suck to go around, it's Washington as usual only magnified these days.
Charon
-
One would like to think procurement would be simply buying the best product and using your huge order size as leverage on price.
Doesn't work that way for a lot of reasons, some endemic to the system.
I was involved at the fringe of trying to get the AF to buy a decent pair of boots at one point instead of the "fall apart when soaking wet for a day" they were issuing us. Total can of worms; better boots available at a lower price. Official reply was "they don't come in black, we can't use brown."
True story. As IF the brown manufacturer wouldn't dye boots black if the entire USAF order was at stake.
It isn't a simple process. I simply don't believe, however, that the guys in charge at the Pentagon "knowingly, premeditatedly and cold-heartedly" did not want the best for our troops. There's probably folks in that procurement chain that have sons and daughters in Iraq.
If the guy ever comes up with substantive proof, however, I hope the guilty folks get sent to Iraq with the less protective vests.
-
The troops are pushing back from this so called scandel
The Pentagon is pushing back hard against allegations soldiers' lives have been lost in Iraq because they were not issued adequate body armor.
"There is nothing more important to the Marine Corps than protecting Marines," Major General William Cato told reporters after a closed briefing on the issue for the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The Pentagon has been under heavy political fire in the wake of recent reports concerning a secret study that found that up to 80 percent of Marines who died in Iraq from upper body wounds could have survived if they had body armor to protect their sides and shoulders. The study prompted outrage from Democrats on Capitol Hill, including from Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who attributed the problem to the Bush Administration's "incompetence."
"To say incompetence I think is probably not accurate," the Army's Major General Jeffrey A. Sorenson told ABC News. "However we have continued to evolve and the evolving of that is an effort that takes an enormous amount of testing, engineering, design to make sure that the soldiers can get what they need."
Sorenson said the Army is constantly improving the body armor for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He says all of its troops in Iraq have already been issued new shoulder protection. The Army is now placing orders for side armor and says every soldier in Iraq will have it by the end of the year, and many will have it much sooner than that.
The Marines -- who have a much smaller force in Iraq than the Army -- have been able to move more quickly, already equipping 9,200 of their troops have new side armor protection. By the end of April, every Marine will have new side armor.
But whether individual Marines and soldiers actually want to use the new armor is another question.
and
..The Army has already modified its Interceptor vest seven times since the 1990s.
The Marines, who commissioned the medical examiner's study in December 2004, have shipped 9,235 side-plate inserts to Iraq since November; about 19,000 more will be given to troops by April, according to Maj. Gen. William Catto of the Marines' procurement arm.
The delay in the Army program, Pentagon officials say, resulted from shortages of some materials needed to produce the ceramic armor plating and the lack of a single large contractor who can produce mass orders. The Pentagon has also been sensitive to concerns that soldiers, already burdened by 75 pounds of battle gear in a desert war, would refuse to don additional armor.
and
My grandfather was a flight engineer on B-26 Marauders in WWII and often has told me of a similar line of thinking to “New York’s own” Senator Clinton. During the course of the war popular thinking by ground based staff was to add more armament to the aircraft, specifically the packet guns on the fore of the airframe. As my grandfather put it; “All that did was slow us down and make it easier to hit us.”
Could body armor be better? Perhaps. But like any battlefield technology things improve over time. Had congress knee-jerked about initial B-26 casualties in WWII it would have never have become one of the safest medium bombers in the war. It would never have been able to support our troops on a tactical level that it excelled at.
and
President-elect, er, Senator Hillary Clinton criticized President Bush for failing to protect our troops with adequate body armor, calling him “incompetent.” Her gripe was based on a “secret” Pentagon study of 74 Marines who were killed by bullets or shrapnel wounds to areas of their bodies that were unprotected, mainly the torso and shoulders.
Of course, to state the patently obvious, Ms. Clinton’s comments are political in nature. It is not President Bush’s job to make equipment decisions. Perhaps Clinton’s remarks will cause him to pressure the Pentagon, but it is with the Department of Defense that the junior senator from New York has her qualm.
As for not protecting the troops, I must disagree. While too many soldiers and Marines are injured or killed in roadside bomb (IED) attacks in up-armored HMWWVs, the additional armor clearly saves lives and limbs. I have seen bits of shrapnel stuck in HMWWV doors, as well as marks from shrapnel that failed to penetrate, that, without the armor, would have made for a bad day.
Senator Clinton’s criticism revolves around individual body armor (IBA) vests. She insinuated that the Bush Administration has neglected to improve on existing vests in saying that soldiers and Marines lack “adequate” armor. Based on my experience in Iraq, which spanned from January to December of 2005 in places like Karbala and Babil Provinces with an Army brigade and Anbar Province with a Marine regiment, I observed several varieties of body armor. Moreover, I saw no fewer than three upgrades over the course of eleven months.
All soldiers and Marines—and sailors and airmen, for that matter—on the ground in Iraq are issued a basic vest with protective plates. I was personally impressed with the vest, at least compared with what I knew from previous service, which was a full-Kevlar jacket that was uncomfortable at best, heavily burdensome at worst.
Early in the tour, my battalion was issued two upgrades to the IBA vests. The first was a set of shoulder pads, and the second was a pair of torso pads to protect a soldier’s sides. Both additions were made of Kevlar and all soldiers could draw them; however, many soldiers elected not to wear one or both of the additions because they felt the extra padding was too cumbersome.
During the middle of the tour, we received yet a third upgrade: thicker plates. There were not enough plates to go around, so the soldiers who conducted patrols daily had the priority. As an intelligence analyst, I did not travel much, so I had the lowest level of protection, but the men and women who were subject to immediate dangers everyday received the extra protection.
I will say, based on personal observations, that the Marine Corps is not as well-equipped as the Army. For example, I noticed that most Marines carried M-16 rifles as opposed to the newer M-4 rifles, which may only be a matter of preference. Marines had all of the aforementioned equipment, just not as much, which would be a supply issue that does not typically reach the desks of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Not that anyone needed to actually say that Ms. Clinton’s comments are political and based on misrepresentations, but we often state the obvious. Perhaps the senator’s griping will bring about further equipment improvements for our men and women in Iraq, but there is no reason her criticism should go unanswered as truth. The Administration has improved all types of armor for our troops in Iraq, and they will continue to do so.
seems like hillary is trying to make this a rallying point just like the rest of the DNC's failed plans/scandles
-
If they had bought the vests that cost twice as much and maybe were better maybe not.... silat would be screaming about "$500 toilet seats".
what cracks me up is that the military is about as far as I want the government to run things... I know they screw it up but war is pretty screwed up anyway... but...
silat feels that they screw up the military but that they would be great to run every other cradle to grave service that he can imagine... every socialsit program imaginable. Just insane.
lazs