The Army’s Body Armor May Be Too Heavy For Soldiers In Combat, Report Finds

Mushroom, if you look at my post to modernpaladin on this topic you'll see I said it depends on the war, it's size, duration, etc. I believe if we got into another war like Vietnam, and if that war dragged on for a decade, and the casualties were equivalent, you'd see the kind of thing you saw in Vietnam again. Carrying a personal sidearm wouldn't even pop up on the radar.

 

Duration? Like say 17+ years?

Even trying to bring in an "unauthorized weapon" would have the individual sent back to the states in handcuffs.

We were checked so many times going to the war zone it is not even funny. First by the unit before leaving to the terminal, then again at the terminal. Then again enroute when we reached Kuwait, then once again at the final destination. And the same was done on the way back. Each step being checked by people, dogs, and x-ray machines.

This is no longer 1968.

BTW, we also do not have the drug issues that happened in that war.

 

You're not catching on.

 

45 years ago. You sure?

 

US involvement in and the war itself ended with the Paris Peace Accords on 27 January 1973.

This is 2018, that makes it over 45 years ago.

What happened in 1975 was a second war, just as WWII was a different war from WWI. Or the Mexican-American War was a different war than the Texas War of Independence (even though many still confuse the two even today). Or Gulf War I and Gulf War II. A peace treaty was signed, war ended, the US went home. What happened after was a different war.

So yes, I am sure. In just over a month it will be 46 years.

 

Not catching on?

Look buddy, you served many decades ago. I am serving even today. Including a deployment to the war zone we are still fighting in. Let's just say that I think I a lot more current information to how we operate today than you do.

You may not like it, but that is a simple fact. Learn to live with it, we are no longer the military of the Vietnam era. And no, we will never return to the era of an individual bringing in a personal weapon and it being ignored. I think the last time I saw something like that to be honest was in 1984.

Our First Sergeant was a crusty old Nam vet, and he pretty much did whatever he wanted since we all knew it was his "sunset tour". And whenever he went to the pistol range for qualification, he brought his own match grade .45 pistol. Now we all knew it was against MCO to use a personal weapon on a range and for qualification. But hell, he was a 25+ year First Sergeant. It was only the range that we ran ourselves, and it did not matter what he shot, he was still retiring the next year.

You served in Nam, good for you. I first put on the uniform during Reagan's first administration, and things had changed a hell of a lot even by then. I can only guess that you would barely even recognize things today. Heck, even I sometimes have problems recognizing how things have changed in the 35 years since I first put on the uniform, but it is a fact.

Your denial does not make it fact.

 

You're still missing it by a mile.

 

Tell that to Richard B. Fitzgibbon Jr. and Harry Griffith Cramer Jr. or Charles McMahon and Darwin Lee Judge, I'm sure they would be less dead knowing the war started in 1961 and ended in 1973.

 

Yea.

And we can also talk to those who were killed on the USS Panay. All 3 killed and 43 wounded in an attack on a US ship by Japan in 1937.

I am sure that they would also be less dead, since everybody knows that WWII between the US and Japan started in 1941.

And Corporal Shōichi Shimada was killed in the Philippines in 1954, after he and his fellow IJA soldiers had been hiding out and doing raids for over 9 years. Just because he died as a soldier does not mean that WWII lasted until 1954 (or 1972 when Lieutenant Hiro Onoda finally surrendered).

And hey, why not drag the timeline back to 1942 when John T Donovan, a member of the AVG was shot down over Indochina?

 

Historical revisionism. I get it.

 

Where have I "revised" anything? I not only gave names, but also dates.

Just because you do not like the facts, that does not mean they are not facts.

Now, did the Paris Peace Accords not end the war? And did the US not pull out after that date? The individuals you listed are known to me, and they were part of the Embassy Security Detachment, they were not there fighting the NVA or any other forces. Linking them is about as logical as linking in those killed in any other embassy attack.

 

I guess you're right. Sorry about that.

 

Sure, like that provided by the neighborhood army surplus store, or maybe LL Bean.

 

Depends on your unit's mission and your orders.

 

Or instead maybe some certified lvl IV to stop most sniper rounds under .50 BMG, like this:
https://infidelbodyarmor.com/armor-...2-front-back-set-single-curveships-sept-p-135

At $1000 or more once you get curved front/back/side plates, carrier and additional lvl IIIa coverage for flex areas, the govt might not want to fork out the dough for such to outfit 10s of thousands of troops. My question was- can they buy it themselves?

I would imagine this particular setup would not be ideal for long foot patrols as its quite heavy, but for fire-base personel, vehicle convoys, mechanized recon, etc, it would likely work pretty good.

 

I was kidding. Seriously, in the military you wear nothing for combat that hasn’t been issued. No, you can’t drive your own Polaris Ranger into battle either.

 

I wouldn’t count on it. Maybe higher rank or special forces could have exceptions.

 

Theres a pretty big difference between supplying your own armor and supplying your own vehicle. Your rediculous comparison makes it sound like you agree that servicemembers shouldn't have the option to equip themselves better than the military is willing to equip them. Given that it would be entirely possible for servicemembers to acquire 'uniform' armor that meets mil-specs, as armor is not a restricted item, why do you view the proposal with so much disdain? Is this a 'no chewing gum in formation unless you brought enough for everyone' kinda deal? Or do you just reject the notion that our military would ever skimp out on gear?

 

It seems sensible to me that the body armor worn should have some flexibility, depending on the mission and level of risk.

In Iraq, my son was severely wounded, but his heavy body armor saved his life.

 

What’s rediculous is your assumption that any soldier can supply himself with his own gear. You seem serious about something that indicated you know next to nothing about the military. What do you think, the average soldier can afford to spend thousands outfitting himself ? Seriously ? You seem to have no idea what it’s like being in the military, even given your “scary avatar.”
The other veterans, as am I for ten plus years, are debating about situations that have merit. You’re playing class warfare in the military. That could increase your chances of getting seriously injured.

 

Class warfare...? Where did you get that from?
I never claimed to be a vet. What does my avatar have to do with anything?

You're all over the board here, talking about everything except actually answering the question.

 

all the border wall money could be used to buy new armor

 

It’s playing class warfare when you allow some soldiers to buy gear they can afford while others can’t. This is what the military has always tried to avoid in general while poster seems to be promoting it. Anyone who promotes soldiers outfitting themselves is wrong on so many fronts, this is just one.
You got the answer, just read it. It’s wrong.

 

Trump seems to think it’s ok to take money out if the military, when it suits him. It’s all about “ him.”

 

Yup, it’s the mission that determines those decisions.