Us troops and armor shortages

I am writing this out of frustration with all these military experts running around. I am tired of people who haven't spent one day in the military give uninformed opinions about military procedures.

There is not a shortage of armor for our troops in Iraq. Period. There are soldiers who do not recieve body armor, such as supply troops. Unfortunately, with the insurgents, all troops, from combat arms to supply are targets in harms way. Now i am not saying that supply troops shouldn't be targets. If you are at war your goal is not kill every troop wearing the uniform of your enemy. But to issue body armor to every troop in the theatre is not possible.

Furthermore, not all Humvees are armored, nor should they be. Many troops are using acquired armor on their vehicles, which is acceptable. The US troop is historically the most ingeniuos, utilitarian and adaptable troop there is. Duct tape and bailing wire are effective materials in the hands of a US troop.

Throughout history, soldiers of all nations have added their own kit to there basic issue materials. Everything from knives and guns, clothing and footwear. Body armor is no different. Excellent body armor can be purchased by any soldier to add to his kit.

Hey, it's war. People like this always present their ideas about why they think the war is wrong, and the anti-war people and the media usually hang on every word they say. There's always going to be people like this, whether they're in the military or not. REMF's, or Rear Echelon Mother (well, you can figure out the last word) as they're known in the military, are high ranking officers who give orders to their troops from the safety of the Pentagon, and don't know what its like to be on the front lines. Same goes with these self-proclaimed "military experts" and what they think we should be doing.

They're like Communists....their plans may look good on paper, but they'll never work in the real world.

If that was the case I would send all the vests we have here that go out of date. They are still good level 3 and 3a with plates. We have about 200 still and most of the time I take them out to try out ammo on to see if they make the test. What bugs me is that there is one handgun that is around here and there that will put a hole wright thur the side of one I will not say what kind and you know why! But it is not thing to see.

[edit on 31-12-2005 by Mr101Hazardous]

Originally posted by zoso28
Throughout history, soldiers of all nations have added their own kit to there basic issue materials. Everything from knives and guns, clothing and footwear. Body armor is no different. Excellent body armor can be purchased by any soldier to add to his kit.

There are one or two problems with purchasing your own body armour, even if it is superior to the issue stuff. The biggest problem is litigation. If you are killed while wearing privately purchased armour, military life insurance may not cover any wounds that you receive as you were not using authorised personal protection equipment. This may leave your family with a financial burden to add to their great personal loss. Another question is that of quality control. If allowed to buy their own armour, the average GI is likely to use the kit that is most comfortable or easy to wear. Unfortunately, comfy body armour tends not to stop a lot of the stuff flying around the sandpit. This leads to lots of folded flags.

I believe that the army is fully capable of issuing body armour to all of the troops on deployment. They are capable of issuing everyone a weapon/webbing/uniform etc., so what is the problem with issuing a piece of equipment that is proven to save lives?

Sorry guys I went to Edit my spelling and hit the Quote key. Mods please remove this post! Thank You.

[edit on 2-1-2006 by Mr101Hazardous]

Originally posted by PaddyInf
There are one or two problems with purchasing your own body armour, even if it is superior to the issue stuff. The biggest problem is litigation. If you are killed while wearing privately purchased armour, military life insurance may not cover any wounds that you receive as you were not using authorised personal protection equipment. This may leave your family with a financial burden to add to their great personal loss.

Do you know this for sure? I am not familiar with this policy. As i understand the insurance, it is provided in the event of your death while on active duty, no matter the circumstances.

Originally posted by zoso28

Originally posted by PaddyInf
There are one or two problems with purchasing your own body armour, even if it is superior to the issue stuff. The biggest problem is litigation. If you are killed while wearing privately purchased armour, military life insurance may not cover any wounds that you receive as you were not using authorised personal protection equipment. This may leave your family with a financial burden to add to their great personal loss.

Do you know this for sure? I am not familiar with this policy. As i understand the insurance, it is provided in the event of your death while on active duty, no matter the circumstances.

Payment of war-widows pension would still be viable, but there would be little chance of persuing any other payment with regards to personal injury claims etc if the injury is to the torso or any other area that is covered by issue body armour.

Unfortunately, the Wests' current 'claim-culture' creates an environment whereby even our servicemen and women are subject to potential let down by the government in the event of their death or injury while on active service. Crazy but unfortunately very true.