Army bans use of privately purchased body armor


PDA






Warren
March 30, 2006, 08:28 PM
Not sure if this is the right sub-forum..but here goes


They fail to equip the soldiers and then turn around and say to them you canot equip yourselves.

I get that some of the armor may be substandard but better some than none.

I'm guessing this decision was made by someone who has not had to face enemy fire.

Link Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_body_armor;_ylt=AowSlfcEtgxaBlBZecLEhIus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-)



WASHINGTON - Soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear body armor other than the protective gear issued by the military, Army officials said Thursday, the latest twist in a running battle over the equipment the
Pentagon gives its troops in
Iraq and
Afghanistan.


Army officials told The Associated Press that the order was prompted by concerns that soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial armor from private companies including the popular Dragon Skin gear made by California-based Pinnacle Armor.

"We're very concerned that people are spending their hard-earned money on something that doesn't provide the level of protection that the Army requires people to wear. So they're, frankly, wasting their money on substandard stuff," said Col. Thomas Spoehr, director of materiel for the Army.

Murray Neal, chief executive officer of Pinnacle, said he hadn't seen the directive and wants to review it.

"We know of no reason the Army may have to justify this action," Neal said. "On the surface this looks to be another of many attempts by the Army to cover up the billions of dollars spent on ineffective body armor systems which they continue to try quick fixes on to no avail."

The move was a rare one by the Army. Spoehr said he doesn't recall any similar bans on personal armor or devices. The directives are most often issued when there are problems with aircraft or other large equipment.

Veterans groups immediately denounced the decision.

Nathaniel R. Helms, editor of the Soldiers for the Truth online magazine Defense Watch, said he has already received a number of e-mails from soldiers complaining about the policy.

"Outrageously we've seen that (soldiers) haven't been getting what they need in terms of equipment and body armor," said Sen. Christopher Dodd (news, bio, voting record), D-Conn., who wrote legislation to have troops reimbursed for equipment purchases. "That's totally unacceptable, and why this directive by the Pentagon needs to be scrutinized in much greater detail."

But another veterans group backed the move.

"I don't think the Army is wrong by doing this, because the Army has to ensure some level of quality," said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "They don't want soldiers relying on equipment that is weak or substandard."

But, Rieckhoff said, the military is partially to blame for the problem because it took too long to get soldiers the armor they needed. "This is the monster they made," he said.

Early in the Iraq war, soldiers and their families were spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars on protective gear that they said the military was not providing.

Then, last October, after months of pressure from families and members of Congress, the military began a reimbursement program for soldiers who purchased their own protective equipment.

In January, an unreleased Pentagon study found that side armor could have saved dozens of U.S. lives in Iraq, prompting the Army and Marine Corps to order thousands of ceramic body armor plates to be shipped to troops there this year.

The Army ban covers all commercial armor. It refers specifically to Pinnacle's armor, saying that while the company advertising implies that Dragon Skin "is superior in performance" to the Interceptor Body Armor the military issues to soldiers, "the Army has been unable to determine the veracity of these claims."

"In its current state of development, Dragon Skin's capabilities do not meet Army requirements," the Army order says, and it "has not been certified to protect against several small arms threats that the military is encountering in Iraq and Afghanistan."

The Marine Corps has not issued a similar directive, but Marines are "encouraged to wear Marine Corps-issued body armor since this armor has been tested to meet fleet standards," spokesman Bruce Scott said.

Military officials have acknowledged that some troops often National Guard or Reservists went to war with lesser-quality protective gear than other soldiers were issued.

"We'll be upfront and recognize that at the start of the conflict there were some soldiers that didn't have the levels of protection that we wanted," Spoehr said. Now, he added, "we can categorically say that whatever you're going to buy isn't as good as what you're going to get" from the military.

In interviews Thursday, Army officials said aggressive marketing by body armor manufacturers was fueling public concerns that troops are not getting the protection they need.

Army Lt. Col. Scott Campbell said the Army has asked Pinnacle to provide 30 sets of the full Dragon Skin armor so it can be independently tested. He said Pinnacle has indicated it won't be able to provide that armor until May, and the company said that is still the plan.

Campbell said initial military tests on small sections of the Dragon Skin armor had disappointing results. He said Pinnacle has received $840,000 in research funding to develop improved armor.

Spoehr said he believes the directive will have little impact on soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan because it's likely that nearly all are wearing the military-issued body armor.

There have been repeated reports of soldiers or families of soldiers buying commercial equipment or trying to raise thousands of dollars to buy it for troops who are preparing to deploy overseas.

If you enjoyed reading about "Army bans use of privately purchased body armor" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Nitrogen
March 30, 2006, 08:46 PM
Awesome! So this means that the Armed services has enough armor for every servicemember in Iraq and Afgnastan, and families don't need to purchace any more, right?

Oh wai...

I don't get it.

MrTwigg
March 30, 2006, 09:01 PM
This really, really, sucks ! :banghead: :fire: :cuss: :scrutiny:

Some weenie needs to be tied to the front of a Bradley and given the privilege of riding point ! :mad::evil: :fire:

Standing Wolf
March 30, 2006, 09:29 PM
Boundless courage in the rear lines.

Kharn
March 30, 2006, 09:34 PM
They fail to equip the soldiers and then turn around and say to them you canot equip yourselves. Bull :cuss:
From what I have read in publically-available sources: No one in the employ of the US Government gets on the plane to Iraq without a set of Interceptor body armor, and it has been that way since the war. Those that leave the US without it are issued a set when they arrive at their staging area (Kuwait or Saudi, usually) before entering Iraq.

Kharn

garyk/nm
March 30, 2006, 09:37 PM
So, commercially available armor is inferior to military issue, which goes to the lowest bidder? Isn't this the definition of irony?

solareclipse
March 30, 2006, 09:40 PM
half my friends who went active and were deployed spent a fortune on their own gear. saved one of them for a fact.

this is a political move. now look at them request more money for that elusive armor... aka 1foot plate that won't cover much on anyone bigger than a 10 year old

Kharn
March 30, 2006, 09:40 PM
Not all body armor exceeds the military standards, and its easier to ban all non-issued equipment than to split hairs on what passes the test and what doesnt.

Kharn

shermacman
March 30, 2006, 09:52 PM
Come on people, if you are going to knee-jerk at least read the article.

AZTOY
March 30, 2006, 09:55 PM
Trust me we have all have Interceptor body armor in Iraq.

Also Kharn is right you can't get on off post or on plane without it and on most post you don't need to wear it.



By the way ,my body armor and plates are collecting dust under my bed .:neener:

DRZinn
March 30, 2006, 10:25 PM
But that contradicts the mantra that the Bush Administration isn't protecting the troops!

longeyes
March 30, 2006, 10:25 PM
Somebody paid off somebody and got the contract. Next question.

Manedwolf
March 30, 2006, 10:30 PM
The owner of Point Blank (official stuff, which was defective in some batches) has made enough money off of all this that late last year, he threw a wretched-show-of-excess $10 MILLION dollar bat mitsvah party for his daughter.

Wasn't there something about "war profiteers", once upon a time?

91Bravo
March 31, 2006, 01:09 AM
I got mine two months before driving BACK south to Kuwait. My armor from Kuwait to Mosul in April of 03 was two layers of sandbags in my deuce & a 1/2. Hope everybody does have it now...Correction, I had a new "flak jacket" to replace my national guard Vietnam Era armor when activated, that would stop pistol rounds and some low velocity fragments. I received armor plates at the previously mentioned time. I don't consider "soft armor" (no plates) to be much armor at all.

Zundfolge
March 31, 2006, 01:26 AM
So, commercially available armor is inferior to military issue, which goes to the lowest bidder? Isn't this the definition of irony?

No, the commercially available armor is designed for police type use in an urban setting where you're generally trying to stop handgun rounds, not a war zone where the guy shooting at you has a battle rifle.

onikuma
March 31, 2006, 01:40 AM
sigh..

cracked butt
March 31, 2006, 02:09 AM
Oh No! The Eeeevil Bush Admin's next step will be to ban soldiers from carrying their favorite hunting rifle during combat or from wearing a Breast Cancer awareness ribbon on their uniforms.The horrors of it all!

:rolleyes:

madmike
March 31, 2006, 02:26 AM
The problem also comes if the stuff is heavier or poorly fitted--can hinder the soldier. Also, there are standard ways to crack body armor on a casualty. That's harder with non-standard armor. Then you get the troop wearing the substandard stuff sent to him, because he's heard bad stories about the issue stuff. And some troops want to wear the LIGHTER civvy stuff, imagining it's as good or not caring it's not, just because it's lighter.

Related problems: early in Afghanistan, some Guard units without modern commo used family band radios...which are not encrypted. They were stopped for obvious reasons.

Some units were welding plates on their trucks to "armor" them. What alloy? Attached where? Doing what to the engine life and tires from the weight? Heat treated how? Does it spall when struck, thus creating more casualties than a straight hit from an RPG? How hard is it to get through to perform maintenance or rescue?

The Marines are dumping the extra plates they're being issued. Too much armor is weight you would rather have in ammo and water. Maneuverability is also a good thing to have.

I got standard PASGT armor in '99 for Desert Fox. I'm not aware of ANY units that don't have PASGT or IBA. The former's only Level IIA, but fragments are the primary threat. And EVERYONE conducting patrols has IBA, to my knowledge. Heck, they have IBA for Basic Training now.

Though I do recall being promised flotation vests for the Mississippi Flood in 93. A colonel who looked like bill clinton's brother promised my wife, who I was sitting next to on a 2 day pass, that EVERYONE had flotation devices, trucks standing by and no more than 4 weeks of duty.

So sorting out the stories is always a problem.

Sergeant Sabre
March 31, 2006, 09:15 AM
So, commercially available armor is inferior to military issue, which goes to the lowest bidder? Isn't this the definition of irony?

"Lowest bidder" doesn't mean the same thing as "cheapest possible product regardless of all else". I think a lot of people misunderstand the bidding process.

The buyer (government) will spell out in great detail exactly what they need their product to do. "I need something that will do 'X'", for example. Contractors will then tell the buyer how much they will need to be paid to provide 'X'. The one that can do it the cheapest gets the contract.

Doing this, the buyer gets 'X', which is what was needed in the first place. Contractors aren't allowed to subtract anything from the very detailed specifications provided to them when bidding to build 'X'. The governmend simply says "I want this" and the contractors do it.

I wouldn't think that much commercially available armor is better than the Interceptor. I am a LEO and my vest now doesn't cover nearly as much area on my body as my Interceptor did. Please also remember that the primary purpose of military body armor is to protect against fragmentation, not small arms.

Also, I can't speak for the Army, but in the Marine Corps everybody was issued body armor (either Interceptor if your unit had it already, or the old style) at supply when they checked in to their unit. That was regardless of any combat deployment or any other factors. Every fleet Marine was issued body armor, a pack (with sleeping bag, and a bunch of other stuff), and a rifle (unless your T/O weapon was something else). Rest assured, the Marines aren't going anywhere without the proper gear.

Kharn
March 31, 2006, 09:32 AM
Doing this, the buyer gets 'X', which is what was needed in the first place. Contractors aren't allowed to subtract anything from the very detailed specifications provided to them when bidding to build 'X'. The governmend simply says "I want this" and the contractors do it.And the government tests the deliveries to make sure the contractor's product meets specification. If more than the allowed number of products in the sample fail the QC checks, the entire delivery lot is rejected and the contractor must do another production run.

Thats why you'll see dented LC ammo for sale, it failed government QC, so the military wont accept it for use in the sandbox and LC has sold it on the domestic market to try to at least cover the cost of the bad batch.

Kharn

Onmilo
March 31, 2006, 09:45 AM
Well there you go,,,
The Army bans something and the people who really need it go right on using whatever they have on hand.
If there are sufficient stocks of Mil issue body armor then nobody will need their own.
I am betting this directive does not apply to Reservists and Guardsmen either.

What are the powers that be going to do if somebody gets caught wearing something other than Mil-Issue?
Give the trooper an Article 15, big deal.
Deny the death benefit? Try getting that one past Congress!
Send the Trooper home? Heh, heh.

Thin Black Line
March 31, 2006, 09:52 AM
I'm guessing this decision was made by someone who has not had to face enemy fire.

At least not under fire recently. Or, are very old-school, ie, "when I was
in Nam we didn't have _______." Well, dad, can we use the newer
technologies rather than don helmets with horns and carry wooden shields?
Warfare has progressed a little since the vikings.

No one in the employ of the US Government gets on the plane to Iraq without a set of Interceptor body armor, and it has been that way since the war.

That is true now, but not earlier in the war.

aka 1foot plate that won't cover much on anyone bigger than a 10 year old

This is why side plates are *slowly* becoming available. But, the appeal
of the Dragonskin is the option to buy full torso wraparound. You would
still need shoulder pads, neck, groin protection.

Not all body armor exceeds the military standards, and its easier to ban all non-issued equipment than to split hairs on what passes the test and what doesnt.

Bingo. We're certainly not going to go through each soldier's gear on an
individual basis regarding armor, optics, weapons. After all, we'd rather
have them sitting for days doing absolutely nothing while they waited for
flights anyway. However, there's a past issue of Newsweek where you can
see a general on the FRONT COVER who is clearly wearing non-standard
armor and, judging by the plate carrier thickness, is probably one of those
wonderful 2 lb poly plates. It's good to be the general.

But that contradicts the mantra that the Bush Administration isn't protecting the troops!

Or the flipside mantras of "WMDs", "imminent threat", "Saddam is working
with Al Qaeda", "things are getting better all the time", "stay the
course"....:rolleyes: I guess it's easy to stay the course when yours
doesn't include daily IEDs in a country that had absolutely nothing to do
with 9-11.

No, the commercially available armor is designed for police type use in an urban setting where you're generally trying to stop handgun rounds, not a war zone where the guy shooting at you has a battle rifle.

Research the type of armor mentioned in the article.

Oh No! The Eeeevil Bush Admin's next step will be to ban soldiers from carrying their favorite hunting rifle during combat or from wearing a Breast Cancer awareness ribbon on their uniforms.The horrors of it all!

I had a tourniquet on mine that was non-standard at the time until it became
standard months later. I guess you would prefer that I left it in my footlocker
until some fobbit who spent his days fishing at Camp V (or back CONUS)
decided it was "ok" to use? My experience has been that these people
typically drag their butts because they do NOT have to worry about being
under fire the next day on a convoy.

91B was there before I was and is 100% correct. Likewise, if you're NG or
USAR, you got needed equipment last. And, I'm not talking about just
armor. If I went into more detail, someone would show up at my door.

half elf
March 31, 2006, 09:59 AM
IIRC the last time this topic came up the gernerals were wearing dragonskin, and requiring the grunts to wear interceptor. I have seen the cutrrent system, and prefer the dragonskin to it in the enviroment of SWA because the ceramic trauma plates are bulky, and brittle. The dragonskin would not be as restrictive on a mechanic or other personnell who do more than just sit behind a desk.

madmike
March 31, 2006, 10:15 AM
I am betting this directive does not apply to Reservists and Guardsmen either.

5 years active, 16 years Guard. My wife has 2 years Guard. Had PASGT then Interceptor at every unit since day 1 in 1985. Signed for it. Hanging in our closet on VERY sturdy hangers. Good shape. She had IBA at Basic.

That includes 5 years in an Air Guard unit designated as "follow team" not "lead team." Original M16s (not A1s), outdated web gear, but modern body armor.

PM me for my address and you can send a check.

(There's a good chance, just like with the Abrams in the Gulf that were supposed to have been converted to 120mm from 105mm and weren't that a unit that is SUPPOSED to have current armor on the TO&E decided not to "waste" the money on that "battle crap" when there was a new conference room with mahogany tables needing built. After all, EVERYONE KNOWS (I have junior and senior personnel tell me this EVERY drill:rolleyes: ) that you get an ENTIRE NEW ISSUE before you deploy.

Yes that issue you have is only a PRETEND issue, not the REAL issue. So there's no need for supply to "Waste" money on stuff "The government" will give you anyway.

This is not a failure of the DoD, DA or DAF. This is a failure of a RECKLESS CRIMINAL IDIOT in charge of material supplies.)

Bartholomew Roberts
March 31, 2006, 10:20 AM
Correction, I had a new "flak jacket" to replace my national guard Vietnam Era armor when activated, that would stop pistol rounds and some low velocity fragments.

Are you claiming you had a pre-PASGT era flak vest or are you calling PASGT a "Vietnam-era" vest?

MudPuppy
March 31, 2006, 10:34 AM
I remember in the movie Sniper where the kid had "Gucci Flauge" and the older Marine sniper said "Can I see?" then tossed it out the train window. I've seen some guys try and uses some crazy (and dangerous) stuff.

I understand TOE. Regulations. The "Army Way."

And I recall not being able to wear the field jacket when an early norther blew in because Division Regs said you couldn't wear them until X date. In Korea we had Mickey Mouse boots that we couldn't wear when it was freezing, but instead were required to wear the overboots over our DPM boots. One guy got busted wearing some nice thinsulate civie boots under those. :)

What's all that to do with the price of tea in communist china? Nothing, except regulations serve a purpose to protect all the soldiers...and they don't always make sense. :)

madmike
March 31, 2006, 10:41 AM
Good question. I do recall seeing Vietnam era stuff in the 1980s. In a rear-echelon AF unit. Marked "Training use only." In a bin next to the racks of PASGT.

Haven't seen any since.

madmike
March 31, 2006, 10:44 AM
Mudpuppy: no, sometimes there are outdated or stupid regs that accomplish nothing. But it's never because command WANTS troops to die or be unsafe. There's always a rationale, even if it's wrong.

And considering what evac, medical care, support and rehab costs, and how two troops down can cripple a squad or convoy, and the FAILURE of several recent civilian body armors, I can't really blame a commander who says, "You WILL wear the tested, issue stuff, not some crap from WalMart."

It may not be the best, but it's a known quantity.

And anyone who said you couldn't wear a field jacket when weather conditions dictate is a scumbag.:fire:

Creeping Incrementalism
March 31, 2006, 11:00 AM
So does the Dragon Skin body armor not work?

madmike
March 31, 2006, 11:12 AM
So does the Dragon Skin body armor not work?

No clue. What's the design parameters? The weight? The coverage? The cost?

Keep in mind generals are generally not where the fighting is.

A GOOD leader wears the same gear as the troops to show support. But if he's at a desk, and this stuff is easier to wear at a desk, that might be why. If he's more worried about a potential assassin with a pistol than an IED, that might be why. If it was sent for free and he was asked to try it out, pursuant to being offered a good deal if he can push an order through, that might be why. If he wants to show off his connections and hi tech, that might be why. If he's just an arrogant @!$hole, that might be why.

Without a lot more information, I can't give you a concrete answer.

Kharn
March 31, 2006, 11:28 AM
Plus the General has a bunch of people with him who's sole duty is to assure his safety and get him out of the area if stuff starts going wrong. Private Whatshisname doesnt have that luxury.

Kharn

Abby
March 31, 2006, 11:43 AM
I'm a reservist, I'm here (out on a FOB), and my entire task force came into country with the IBA and plates (we also have a very nice "sugar daddy" high command, though, so I don't claim to speak for all the Guard/Reserve types). I guess there are new (lighter? stronger? I dunno) plates out there starting to trickle down to us...

We've received the side panels and the "waterwings" since being here (when we first arrived they were only available for the turret gunners).

This is the second place we've been in Iraq and on both FOBs every unit I've seen has had IBAs with plates.

My impression is that people really needed the good civilian armor in OIF I and II, before the Interceptor was fully fielded.

I started my active duty days in the Marine Corps, where all I ever saw (though 2001) was the trusty ol' "flak." This interceptor system WORKS. Several of us here are only alive and/or non PH recipients because of it. Of course, that's all shrapnel-based, none of my people have been shot while wearing the stuff (thank goodness).

Sergeant Sabre
March 31, 2006, 11:45 AM
the ceramic trauma plates are bulky, and brittle

Funny you should mention that. When I was given a SAAPI plate for the front of my Interceptor aboard the USS Bataan I was surprised to see, printed in white all capital letters on the front of the plate, the words "handle with care" :what:

And this is supposed to take a rifle round????

It seems odd, huh? The SAAPI plates work, though. That's been proven in Iraq. People have taken 7.62mm rifle fire to the center of the chest and walked way uninjured. That's one round, mind you. I'm told the SAAPI plates pretty much disintegrate when they are hit, compromising the protection they afford. I dunno for sure, mine was never hit.

madmike
March 31, 2006, 11:47 AM
Welcome, Abby.

I have a video of a medic getting hit center mass in the IBA. He dropped from reflex, rolled, took cover, returned fire and got the Haji.

No damage to him.

Advice for target with armor: Don't aim for the plate. Head or hips.

Be safe. Send me a mailing address and I'll send you some books to pass the time.

Creeping Incrementalism
March 31, 2006, 11:55 AM
Without a lot more information, I can't give you a concrete answer.

Okay, someone send some Dragon Skin to the Box O' Truth!

tellner
March 31, 2006, 12:12 PM
This really, really, sucks !

No it doesn't. If it did, it would be good for something :mad:

seeker_two
March 31, 2006, 12:35 PM
Interesting....

BTW, I wonder how long until the military bans its soldiers from recieving private-sector training (i.e. Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, etc.) because the military is convinced "our way is the ONLY way"?...... :scrutiny:

madmike
March 31, 2006, 12:40 PM
Seeker: Most units encourage that.

There isn't enough time or ammo for sufficient training on duty.

This isn't a conspiracy to kill soldiers, folks. It's a LARGE BUREAUCRACY trying to deal with a WAR, and GOVERNMENTS and its own PEOPLE, and is run by PEOPLE.

Enough of the Hollywood tinfoil hattery. Some officers are good, and some are bad, just like anywhere. The difference is, there are regs they can follow that WORK. Not always well, rarely ideally, but do work.

Of course, we COULD just give every troop $5000 and tell them to buy their own gear. Do you REALLY BELIEVE that would work better?

Correia
March 31, 2006, 01:06 PM
Manedwolf, why the heck should it bother you that the president of Pointblank is rich? If he makes millions of dollars from his company, why does that hurt you? Where is your evidence of "war profiteering"? (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) Pointblank is also the most successful law enforcement body armor company out there. They sell a lot of armor, so if that dude has 10 million to blow, I say good for him. Someday I hope to be rich and blow asinine sums of money on whatever I feel like too. :)

The Interceptor is a good piece of gear.

MudPuppy
March 31, 2006, 01:33 PM
MadMike, I wasn't saying the Army approach is wrong--it may not be tailored for every concievable scenario or evolve rapidly (especially in line units).

The Military is throrugh and even if beauractic at times, I definitely understand there is a method to the madness. (for example, troops wearing boots or gear that keeps them warm, but works a sweat. Stop for the day and instant frostbite! While you can tell I wasn't in the sandbox, i could easily envision similar problems with letting everyone do their own thing)

To this day I practice the "army way" of training people at work.

Explanation, Demonstration, and Practical Application. :)

That said, we better be doing all we reasonably can to get the troops the gear they need to do the job and get as many of 'em home in one piece!

madmike
March 31, 2006, 02:05 PM
Pup, my wife and I have our full issue, plus our OWN spare complete issue, down to cleaning kits, spare parts and our own M16 uppers and optics, body armor, helmets, GPS and compasses, just in case someone @#!$s up and we don't get it issued.

The PLAN is that all troops have EVERYTHING.

There is always some CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT IDIOT (see above) who ruins The Plan.

Besides, for TEOTWAWKI, we can always use the stuff. Sure, other people around here have guns. Do they have body armor, field surgical kits, GPS and commo? I think not.

Zundfolge
March 31, 2006, 02:07 PM
The owner of Point Blank (official stuff, which was defective in some batches) has made enough money off of all this that late last year, he threw a wretched-show-of-excess $10 MILLION dollar bat mitsvah party for his daughter.

Wasn't there something about "war profiteers", once upon a time?

Yeah, how DARE he profit from his invention ... its too useful for any one person to profit from it ... in fact if someone invents something useful they should be put in work camps and forced to produce even more for the common good.


greedy capitalist scum.

madmike
March 31, 2006, 02:14 PM
Zund: he was selling stuff that DID NOT perform to spec and got people killed.

Yes. How DARE he profit from that and flaunt it.

Correia
March 31, 2006, 02:39 PM
Mike, that happened to everybody who used Zylon. At the time all of the body armor companies thought that Zylon was the next big thing. Turns out they were wrong. And it wasn't Pointblank that denied it and didn't do anything about it. It was Second Chance.

madmike
March 31, 2006, 02:40 PM
I stand corrected. Thanks.

What are they using now?

Kevlarman
March 31, 2006, 03:35 PM
Besides, for TEOTWAWKI, we can always use the stuff. Sure, other people around here have guns. Do they have body armor, field surgical kits, GPS and commo? I think not.


I do!
But then again, I live in California.
:D

madmike
March 31, 2006, 03:46 PM
Then you need to join Zombie Squad so we can get you linked in for when the next outbreak happens.

America depends on us.

Sgt Stevo
March 31, 2006, 06:15 PM
When I returned from OEF-1, A friend of mine in San Jose, whom owns a police store and I, were going to send some vest over.

The CSM Of the CANG , told us we could not. the reason? he had to be sure that the Vest and other tools were up to standerd.

he said, that everytime a troop is killed. there is an inquiry in the rear. And if this Stuff we handed out did not work as intended. All hell would break loose.

he did say we could donate to the haji types that were being trained by our boys.

I lost interest.

madmike
March 31, 2006, 06:31 PM
Good point. Someone dies wearing his own vest, and the press will be all over it, as to "Why are the commanders negligently letting our troops wear substandard equipment instead of the issue gear?"

Any answer is wrong. These aren't people. They're reporters.:banghead:

Manedwolf
April 1, 2006, 02:34 PM
Manedwolf, why the heck should it bother you that the president of Pointblank is rich? If he makes millions of dollars from his company, why does that hurt you? Where is your evidence of "war profiteering"? (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean)

It USED to mean something. Check out instances of people being tried for war profiteering in WWII. Now, it's generally done with no-bids contracts, blatant ones, negotiated in backslapping backroom sessions.

War profiteering used to be frowned upon.

But that sort of nation-before-profit ethos died among the ranks of Ayn Rand disciples, it seems. Proto-neocons. Go ahead and get rich by any means, it's a VIRTUE to do that! Never mind how you do it!

This sort of thing, BTW, is the same reason why we're still using Vietnam-era transport helicopters, because all the funding for development of a follow-on replacement was tied up in the big, stinking barrel of pork called the V-22 Osprey, which not only doesn't work well, but has killed a number of Marines in testing.

And as for Point Blank? Here you go..here's some history.

"The INTERCEPTOR System went into production in 1998 under a five-year contract awarded by US Army Natick Soldier Center contracting. On 27 July 1998 Point Blank Body Armor Inc.*, Oakland Park, Fla., was awarded on July 23, 1998, $5,573,715, as part of an $82,265,250 firm-fixed-price, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for 10,475 U.S. Marine Corps Tactical Body Armor (INTERCEPTOR) Outer Tactical Vests (OTV)."

Right. Then in 2003, the Interceptor vest was found to be deficient in stopping rounds in some tests..didn't meet the needed specs. Remember that? Recalls?

So what's the government reaction...hold new trials, find another company, right, get the best stuff, the first one showed a problem delivering the best goods? There's LOTS of armor companies.

Nope. In July 2004, Point Blank got two more contracts, for $239,400,000, and $24,756,750.

Just tell me there's not some backroom backpatting going on, there.

AaronE
April 1, 2006, 03:13 PM
Bull
From what I have read in publically-available sources: No one in the employ of the US Government gets on the plane to Iraq without a set of Interceptor body armor, and it has been that way since the war. Those that leave the US without it are issued a set when they arrive at their staging area (Kuwait or Saudi, usually) before entering Iraq.

Kharn

Kharn,

Several of my friends who went in early in both Afghanistan and Iraq were NOT equipped. Bill Z is sporting a PH for that one...his PRIVATE armor kept it from being a " We regret to inform you". :what: He is one HIGHLY critical Captain, who has a bunch of survivors under him. They all came back, mostly whole.

Aaron

madmike
April 1, 2006, 03:41 PM
Early on means two things:

First, a lot of gear wasn't yet in system. Interceptor was new at the time.

Second, reference those idiots I spoke of who prefer to spend budget on O clubs and swimming pools and parade fields rather than "Waste" it on that "military crap" that "The government will give us IF we actually need it."

Phantom Warrior
April 1, 2006, 03:48 PM
I'm stationed in Germany, with a possible deployment in the next few months. I've had my IBA vest and my SAPI plates since I got my CIF issue in November. *shrug*

748
April 1, 2006, 04:12 PM
Standing wolf said:
"Boundless courage in the rear lines."
:cuss: It's true and we all know it.

madmike
April 1, 2006, 04:49 PM
Standing wolf said:
"Boundless courage in the rear lines."
It's true and we all know it.

Most of the generals these days were grunts in 'Nam.

Kharn
April 1, 2006, 05:11 PM
AaronE:
Note that I said 'since the war', meaning after the war ended. Not the opening days.

Kharn

If you enjoyed reading about "Army bans use of privately purchased body armor" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!