http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030626/5275812s.htm
Troops pay to get better gear Standard equipment lacking in some cases
By John Diamond
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. soldiers who invaded Iraq went into battle with the most modern and lethal equipment ever carried by an armed force. In some cases, they paid for it themselves.
Combat soldiers interviewed by an Army investigative team after the capture of Baghdad reported that they dipped into their own pockets to buy such accessories as pistol holsters, rucksacks, boot soles, underwear, rifle sights, global-positioning-system handsets and field radios, rather than use Army-issue versions.
''Soldiers still spend too much of their own money to purchase the quality packs, pouches, belts, underwear, socks and gloves they believe they need for mission success and comfort,'' says a report drafted by Program Executive Office Soldier, the unit in charge of developing equipment for Army combat soldiers. A copy of the draft was obtained by USA TODAY.
The Army investigative team heard complaints of socks that were too hot, boot soles unable to handle the Iraqi terrain, a pistol magazine that sometimes failed to feed a bullet into the chamber, and field radios too weak to reach friendly units a few city blocks away.
While the Pentagon equips the military using regulation-bound procedures, soldiers for years have bought equipment based on word-of-mouth advice about what works best in combat. By interviewing troops just after the war, the Army is tapping into that wisdom.
''You do better going to L.L. Bean,'' says retired Army colonel Kenneth Allard, who headed a team that urged more off-the-shelf purchases back in 1994. ''It has been a scandal for so long because it takes so long to get Gore-Tex; it takes so long to get everything the typical mountain-climbing expedition has as a matter of course.''
The draft report found that some of the government-issued gear performed well. Body armor saved lives; sniper rifles were lethal at nearly a mile; the M-4 rifle outperformed the Iraqis' AK-47s; and tools such as battle axes and bolt cutters proved highly useful in urban combat.
But the report, written by Army Lt. Col. Jim Smith, cites example after example of soldiers using their own money to buy gear they felt performed better in combat than items provided at taxpayer expense.
Troops pay to get better gear Standard equipment lacking in some cases
By John Diamond
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. soldiers who invaded Iraq went into battle with the most modern and lethal equipment ever carried by an armed force. In some cases, they paid for it themselves.
Combat soldiers interviewed by an Army investigative team after the capture of Baghdad reported that they dipped into their own pockets to buy such accessories as pistol holsters, rucksacks, boot soles, underwear, rifle sights, global-positioning-system handsets and field radios, rather than use Army-issue versions.
''Soldiers still spend too much of their own money to purchase the quality packs, pouches, belts, underwear, socks and gloves they believe they need for mission success and comfort,'' says a report drafted by Program Executive Office Soldier, the unit in charge of developing equipment for Army combat soldiers. A copy of the draft was obtained by USA TODAY.
The Army investigative team heard complaints of socks that were too hot, boot soles unable to handle the Iraqi terrain, a pistol magazine that sometimes failed to feed a bullet into the chamber, and field radios too weak to reach friendly units a few city blocks away.
While the Pentagon equips the military using regulation-bound procedures, soldiers for years have bought equipment based on word-of-mouth advice about what works best in combat. By interviewing troops just after the war, the Army is tapping into that wisdom.
''You do better going to L.L. Bean,'' says retired Army colonel Kenneth Allard, who headed a team that urged more off-the-shelf purchases back in 1994. ''It has been a scandal for so long because it takes so long to get Gore-Tex; it takes so long to get everything the typical mountain-climbing expedition has as a matter of course.''
The draft report found that some of the government-issued gear performed well. Body armor saved lives; sniper rifles were lethal at nearly a mile; the M-4 rifle outperformed the Iraqis' AK-47s; and tools such as battle axes and bolt cutters proved highly useful in urban combat.
But the report, written by Army Lt. Col. Jim Smith, cites example after example of soldiers using their own money to buy gear they felt performed better in combat than items provided at taxpayer expense.
