Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sun 01/08/2006 View Sat 01/07/2006 View Fri 01/06/2006 View Thu 01/05/2006 View Wed 01/04/2006 View Tue 01/03/2006 View Mon 01/02/2006
1
2006-01-08 Home Front: WoT
U.S. Soldiers Question Use of More Armor
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2006-01-08 00:22|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Like a rich armor worn in heat of day.
That scalds with safety.
Posted by gromgoru 2006-01-08 06:37||   2006-01-08 06:37|| Front Page Top

#2 A new type of armor is in the testing stages that is normally soft,but when hit with rounds or shrapnel becomes hard in milliseconds.
Posted by raptor 2006-01-08 07:08||   2006-01-08 07:08|| Front Page Top

#3 Ever play Croquette?
Hitting a hard surface with another hard surface causes the inertia to transmit freely, as in the soft/hard armor will give you a knockdown punch and transmit all the inertia into your body.

I can see some advantage, you don't have a hole in you, but pulverized soft tissues will kill all the same.

Needs more thought.
Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-01-08 09:37||   2006-01-08 09:37|| Front Page Top

#4 Seems like a lot of emotion in the discussion and not much analysis. One of a commanders objectives should be to bring as many troops home as possible regardless of the inevitable and enjoyable bitching.

What are the facts? No reporting on how the Rakkasans have done with the full suit versus soldiers otherwise similarly deployed. That would be interesting as opposed to he said, she said. Typical MSM
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-01-08 09:55||   2006-01-08 09:55|| Front Page Top

#5 Well, RJ, the intertia has to go somewhere. Spreading it over more of the body is the best that can be done, unless we want to comtemplate Reactive body armor.
Posted by Jackal">Jackal  2006-01-08 09:55|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]  2006-01-08 09:55|| Front Page Top

#6 Reactive body armor...might reduce bar fights.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-01-08 09:56||   2006-01-08 09:56|| Front Page Top

#7 The examples of these soldiers comments are more a product of soldiers hardened in combat and feeling "When its your time" attitude, as well as just plain old bitching. Later in life when they get home or after they are saved by a shot to the chest they will reevaluate this attitude. Commander's must continue to balance combat effectiveness with force protection and force them to wear it. The stuff is hot, weighs a lot and uncomfortable, but it's a lot better than the stuff we wore in the 80's. Hearing soldiers bitch about it means the commanders are doing their job, keep it up. Soon the discomfort of war will be nothing but a war story when they get home.
Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan  2006-01-08 10:52||   2006-01-08 10:52|| Front Page Top

#8 There was also an item in the discussion about this over at Defensetech concerning quality control in the existing armor. _Some_ of the ceramic inserts that were made for the Stryker vehicle failed their quality-control tests and had to be redone. Also, there was a big rush to put this stuff into service.

Notice the wording in the second paragraph, "...unprotected by traditional ceramic armor plating."

This stuff has only been in production since '99 or so. It's not "traditional."

I _am_ interested in designing better armor, I'm going to try to put together an entry in the next Grand Challenge, which is for light vehicle armor. But this report, and the second-rate political reportage behind it, doesn't tell me anything useful.
Posted by Phil 2006-01-08 11:02||   2006-01-08 11:02|| Front Page Top

#9 Phil’s right and they also don’t talk about what failed in the quality testing. I’m sure even the failed ceramic armor outperformed the previous armor. We used to slip steel plates into our flight gear, that was heavy, not very effective and uncomfortable. Then it went to Kevlar, bulky and heavy. Now the new ceramic stuff is lighter and better. We test the body armor as part of life cycle management and it has held up better than expected, even with the rush to fielding. Good luck Phil, we need lighter and tougher armor.
Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan  2006-01-08 11:20||   2006-01-08 11:20|| Front Page Top

#10 I too hope that we're able to discover a lighter more movable armor to protect all of our soldiers in the best way.
I do question outlining the details for all to see. The more information that the enemy gets the better they can devise ways to penetrate it.
Posted by Jan 2006-01-08 11:36||   2006-01-08 11:36|| Front Page Top

#11 I have never served in combat but I did get to wear just the Helmet and Flak vest in training and that shit was heavy. I am sure we are capable of building a suit al-la-Halo but it would have to weigh a ton and I doubt that anyone could move effectively in combat (aside from the game). What is NOT pointed out is that given the attacks, the armor the troops are wearing seems to lessen the casualties in Iraq.
Posted by Cyber Sarge">Cyber Sarge  2006-01-08 12:00||   2006-01-08 12:00|| Front Page Top

#12 49 Pan: While the contest is for armor for light vehicles, and I'm just working on flat rigid panels for same (it's all I'll have the equipment to deal with for the current concept, which I don't really want to discuss openly), I would like to solicit suggestions from anyone who's actually been there...
Posted by Phil 2006-01-08 12:04||   2006-01-08 12:04|| Front Page Top

#13 good luck & success, Phil
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-01-08 12:15||   2006-01-08 12:15|| Front Page Top

#14 Phil, I have not been shot while wearing armor, or in a newly armored vehicle. However, tag my email and I will connect you with some close friends that have and are believers.
Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan  2006-01-08 13:22||   2006-01-08 13:22|| Front Page Top

#15 Jason Van Steenwyck at iraqnow.blogspot.com had some thoughts about the armor in the field. He actually declined to wear the neck piece 'cos it interfered with his ability to sight and shoot his weapon. And he chose not to wear the crotch armor 'cos...it looked stupid.
Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious  2006-01-08 14:08||   2006-01-08 14:08|| Front Page Top

#16 Not to second guess a troop in the field but the parts that armor protects are pretty valuable. Nothing looks cool in combat except getting out of the fight with all parts attached! I would dare say his wife has a different perspective on what looks cool!
Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan  2006-01-08 14:20||   2006-01-08 14:20|| Front Page Top

#17 Would love to read about 1,000 pieces of written testimony from vets who were wearing this modern armor when they were shot. An occasional anecdote isn't that useful.
Posted by Snuns Thromp1484 2006-01-08 23:29||   2006-01-08 23:29|| Front Page Top

13:52 Muhammad Screwed My Pig Allah
12:38 Muhammad Screwed My Pig Allah
23:48 Bomb-a-rama
23:42 Snuns Thromp1484
23:29 Snuns Thromp1484
23:22 Snuns Thromp1484
23:21 phil_b
22:40 Spoter Unatle4689
22:34 Inspector Clueso
22:32 Jackal
22:22 phil_b
22:17 C-Low
21:56 Frank G
21:55 ed
21:14 Bobby
21:02 trailing wife
20:51 trailing wife
20:44 Nimble Spemble
20:37 trailing wife
20:34 trailing wife
20:30 Darrell
20:28 Frank G
20:27 49 Pan
20:25 Frank G









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com