This issue baffles the fuck out of me. Why is it an issue? Forgive my naivete for a moment, but isn't GWB the President? Can't he make these companies 'step-it-up' a bit? This has been an issue since May of 2004, and I have a very hard time understanding how this administration can ask us to support the troops when he is doing just the opposite.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00219.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=support

Maybe he should appoint a former Wal Mart exec. They really know how to turn up the heat on suppliers.

Cindy Sheenan isn't paying her taxes in protest, so we cannot afford the armor anymore.

edit: pic did not copy...

but check out this website:

http://postsecret.blogspot.com/

Oh, That's great

bump

January 7, 2006
Pentagon Study Links Fatalities to Body Armor
By MICHAEL MOSS

A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

The ceramic plates in vests now worn by the majority of troops in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back. In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.

Thirty-one of the deadly wounds struck the chest or back so close to the plates that simply enlarging the existing shields "would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," according to the study, which was obtained by The New York Times.

For the first time, the study by the military's medical examiner shows the cost in lives from inadequate armor, even as the Pentagon continues to publicly defend its protection of the troops.

Officials have said they are shipping the best armor to Iraq as quickly as possible. At the same time, they have maintained that it is impossible to shield forces from the increasingly powerful improvised explosive devices used by insurgents in Iraq. Yet the Pentagon's own study reveals the equally lethal threat of bullets.

The vulnerability of the military's body armor has been known since the start of the war, and is part of a series of problems that have surrounded the protection of American troops. Still, the Marine Corps did not begin buying additional plates to cover the sides of their troops until September, when it ordered 28,800 sets, Marine officials acknowledge.

The Army, which has the largest force in Iraq, is still deciding what to purchase, according to Army procurement officials. They said the Army was deciding among various sizes of plates to give its 130,000 soldiers, adding that they hoped to issue contracts this month.

Additional forensic studies by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's unit that were obtained by The Times indicate that about 340 American troops have died solely from torso wounds.

Military officials said they had originally decided against using the extra plates because they were concerned they added too much weight to the vests or constricted the movement of soldiers. Marine Corps officials said the findings of the Pentagon study caused field commanders to override those concerns in the interest of greater protection.

"As the information became more prevalent and aware to everybody that in fact these were casualty sites that they needed to be worried about, then people were much more willing to accept that weight on their body," said Maj. Wendell Leimbach, a body armor specialist with Marine Corps Systems Command, the corps procurement unit.

The Pentagon has been collecting the data on wounds since the beginning of the war in March 2003 in part to determine the effectiveness of body armor. The military's medical examiner, Dr. Craig T. Mallak, told a military panel in 2003 that the information "screams to be published." But it would take nearly two years.

The Marine Corps said it asked for the data in August 2004; but it needed to pay the medical examiner $107,000 to have the data analyzed. Marine officials said financing and other delays had resulted in the study's not starting until December 2004. It finally began receiving the information by June 2005. The shortfalls in bulletproof vests are just one of the armor problems the Pentagon continues to struggle with as the war in Iraq approaches the three-year mark, The Times has found in a continuing examination of the military procurement system.

The production of a new armored truck called the Cougar, which military officials said had so far withstood every insurgent attack, has fallen three months behind schedule. The small company making the truck has been beset by a host of production and legal problems.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is still relying on another small factory in Ohio to armor all of the military's principal transport trucks, the Humvee, and it remains backlogged with orders. The factory, owned by Armor Holdings, increased production in December after reports in The Times about delays drew criticism from Congress. But the Marine Corps said it was still waiting for about 2,000 of these vehicles to replace other Humvees in Iraq that are more lightly armored, and did not expect final delivery until June.

An initiative begun by the Pentagon nearly two years ago to speed up production by having additional companies armor new Humvees remains incomplete, Army officials said.

Body armor has gone through a succession of problems in Iraq. First, there were prolonged shortages of the plates that make the vests bulletproof. Last year, the Pentagon began replacing the plates with a stronger model that is more resistant to certain insurgent attacks.

Almost from the beginning, some soldiers asked for additional protection to stop bullets from slicing through their sides. In the fall of 2003, when troops began hanging their crotch protectors under their arms, the Army's Rapid Equipping Force shipped several hundred plates to protect their sides and shoulders. Individual soldiers and units continued to buy their own sets.

The Army's former acting secretary, Les Brownlee, said in a recent interview that he was shown numerous designs for expanded body armor in 2003, and had instructed his staff to weigh their benefits against the perceived threat without losing sight of the main task: eliminating the shortages of plates for the chest and back.

Army procurement officials said that their efforts to purchase side ceramic plates had been encumbered by the Army's much larger force in Iraq compared with the Marines' and that they wanted to provide manufacturers with detailed specifications. Also, they said their plates would be made to resist the stronger insurgent attacks.

The Marine Corps said it had opted to take the older version of ceramic to speed delivery. As of early last month, officials said marines in Iraq had received 2,200 of the more than 28,000 sets of plates that are being bought at a cost of about $260 each.

Marine officials said they had supplied troops with soft shoulder protection that can repel some shrapnel, but remained concerned that ceramic shoulder plates would be too restrictive. Similarly, they said they believed that the chest and back plates were as large as they could be without unduly limiting the movement of troops.

The Times obtained the three-page Pentagon report after a military advocacy group, Soldiers for the Truth, learned of its existence. The group posted an article about the report on its Web site earlier this week. The Times delayed publication of this article for more than a week until the Pentagon confirmed the authenticity of its report. Pentagon officials declined to discuss details of the wound data, saying it would aid the enemy.

"Our preliminary research suggests that as many as 42 percent of the Marine casualties who died from isolated torso injuries could have been prevented with improved protection in the areas surrounding the plated areas of the vest," the study concludes. An additional 23 percent might have been saved with side plates that extend below the arms, while 15 percent more could have benefited from shoulder plates, the report says.

In all, 526 marines have been killed in combat in Iraq. A total of 1,706 American troops have died in combat there. The findings and other research by military pathologists suggests that an analysis of all combat deaths in Iraq, including those of Army troops, would show that 300 or more lives might have been saved with improved body armor.

Military officials and contractors said the Pentagon's procurement troubles had stemmed in part from miscalculations that underestimated the strength of the insurgency, and from years of cost-cutting that left some armoring companies on the brink of collapse as they waited for new orders.

To help defeat roadside ambushes, the military in May 2005 contracted to buy 122 Cougars whose special V-shaped hull helps deflect roadside bombs, military officials said. But the Pentagon gave the job to a small company in South Carolina, Force Protection, that had never mass-produced vehicles. Company officials said a string of blunders had pushed the completion date to this June.

A dozen prototypes shipped to Iraq have been recalled from the field to replace a failing transmission. Steel was cut to the wrong size before the truck's design drawings were perfected. Several managers have left the company.

Company officials said they had also lost time in an interservice skirmish. The Army, which is buying the bulk of the vehicles, asked for its trucks to be delivered before the Marine vehicles, and company officials said that move had upended their production process until the Army agreed to get back in line behind the Marines.

"It is what it is, and we're running as fast as we can to change it," Gordon McGilton, the company's chief executive, said in an interview at its plant in Ladson, S.C.

On July 5, two former employees brought a federal false-claims case that accuses Force Protection of falsifying records to cover up defective workmanship. They allege that the actions "compromise the immediate and long-term integrity of the vehicles and result in a deficient product," according to legal documents filed under seal in the United States District Court in Charleston and obtained by The Times.

The legal claim also accuses the company of falsifying records to deceive the military into believing the company could meet the production deadlines. The United States Attorney's office in South Carolina declined to comment on the case. The Marine Corps says the Justice Department did not notify it about the case until December.

Force Protection officials said they had not been made aware of the legal case. They acknowledged making mistakes in rushing to fill the order, but said that there were multiple systems in place to monitor the quality of the trucks, and that they were not aware of any deficiencies that would jeopardize the troops.

Where'd this article come from?

Sorry.
This morning's nytimes.com in the politics section.

Thanks. Scary stuff.

Yeah, and it's a crock of horseshit too.

I have never, ever talked to a Marine who served in Iraq that wasn't issued SAPI plates. When the guys in my unit went, they had so many EXTRA SAPI plates, that they lined the bottom of their seven tons with them to guard against mines.

Everyone that gets deployed into a combat zone goes with a pair of serialized SAPI plates. No ifs, and's, or buts about it.

We're now criticizing the size of the SAPI plates? They should fit into the shoulders now too, and just be bigger? What about guys that die from getting shot in the legs and bleed out? Let's just have FULL body armor. I'm so glad the people that wrote this article have fielded tested this shit. You know how many people wouldn't wear SAPI plates if not ordered to? You know how many people don't wear them anyhow?

Have you ever seen blackhawk down where they're getting ready to head into Moqdishu and they pull their plates out because it's heavy, bulky, and restricts movement? Well, that's what SAPI plates are, and do. They're heavy, and they restrict movement like a mother fucker. The whole flak system is bulky, rigid, and constrains movement immensely. It's a big improvement over what it was when I joined up, but it's still a pisser to wear. There's a ball baurd, two neck protectors on top of it (those are the worst part), and now we want to have areas to insert SAPI plates in the shoulders and everywhere else?

Again, I'm glad the authors of this shit field tested it, and went to combat with it on. Nothing like New York Times authors criticizing something like this.

Some other things you have to realize about these vests, is that they don't stop heavy machine gun fire, and even if you put three well placed shots with a handgun, you'll end up getting through a SAPI.

I love how all of a sudden the it's the governments job to ensure that I am bullet proof.

Well, thanks, but I'm still inclined to believe the study conducted by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner.

Does the Journal of LittleWing Today have peer review?

Thanks for your perspective on this LittleWing. I'm sure you're more qualified to speak to this than most of us on this board. I'm curious, however, on your take from the following section of the article.


That's the part I was referring to when I said scary. According to THE PENTAGON study, this armor has been available since 2003. Furthermore, there have been requests from THE FIELD, to have it. Now as far as whether soldiers will actually wear it or not, I guess that's something for them and their commanding officers to work out. Depending on what their roles are, I would have to imagine that some would take any additional armor they could get.

I don't think this article is suggesting sending soldiers out in suits of armor or anything. It's specifically addressing torso injuries. There's always been, and always will be, a trade off between protection and mobility in warfare, so your comments don't surprise me. What does surprise me a little is your willingness to accept anything less than the best the military can offer you. How do you feel about having to use SAPI plates to line the bottoms of your seven tons? Is that generally accepted by soldiers?

Is it only qualified up to 7.62*39 rounds, and thus 7.62*54r rounds can get through, or are you talking about 12.7mm+ rounds? If its the latter, why of course not, I mean, its hard enough to protect aircraft and helicopters from that kind of round. I'm just curious because I thought it protected up to 7.62*54r.

Well, thanks, and I'll still believe the company of Iraq vets that I'm serving with now. As well as the Iraq vets I've met through my travels and at my unit. And I'll also believe the situation in the combat zone that I live in before any study.

Oh, but I did talk to a Marine last night who didn't have SAPI plates. But he stayed in Kuwait for the duration of the war.



Commanding Officers will always request more. That's their job. To them, they are more concerned about their command and how they look than the actual functionality of their untis. Oh, I could go on and on and on about examples like this...but I really shouldn't. We'll save those stories for when my time in the Corp is done.

CO's don't want to write telegrams home to familes, nor make dreaded phone calls, nor have eyes from above looking down on them when they lose a Marine. So they will always ask for everything. That doesn't mean they are entitled, or even have a need for it.



Are they entitled to make us bulletproof? Are the tax payers entitled to pay for it? Our equipment is hardly top notch on many fronts. Quite frankly, when it comes to body armor, what we have is top notch. I've trained with Germans and the British out here, and I can tell you straight up, when it comes to body armor we have them beat. Our weapons on the other hand...

So far as the story about lining the floors of trucks with SAPI plates. My friends started doing this after the battle of Naseriya. I dunno if you're familiar with the story, but my guys were the batch of guys left for dead on the other side of the Euphrates. They had AMTRACKS with no ammo, little food, and they ran out of ammo two days in. Again, they were left for dead. Ironically, that is when a lot of them decided to shed the SAPI plates. It's really hard to describe their attitudes about the battle, and why they ditched their plates and used them for other things, but it was mainly because they felt the threat was worse from below than from the side.

Now, so far as trucks needing SAPI plates in the floor. When you're motor-T, if you're in a good unit, they teach you how to battle ready a truck. One of those things you do, is line the bottom of your truck with sandbags to lesson the blow from an anti-tank mine. Again, lessen the blow. They put their SAPI plates down there instead. Made moving around in the vehicle and operating it much easier.



A SAPI plate is designed to stop rounds from a regular ole AK-47. I don't know the specifics. The SAPI does nothing when it comes to 7.62 rounds fired out of a crew served machine gun. And again, it also has a tendency to crack and give in if it takes rounds of any calibre in a tight location. It is brittle ceramic after all.

Thanks for the additional info LW.

You do know this isn't "the liberal media," right? It's a Pentagon study.

Come on B, don't you know that they're part of the conspiracy too?

Additional comment: even if the study is bullshit, is it half right? How many deaths due to insufficient equipment is acceptable? 60%? 40%? 20%?