It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Army bans privately purchased body armor.

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   
The US Army announced today that it will not allow soldiers to wear body armor that they did not issue. This is not the first time controversy has taken place over protective gear. Senator Christopher Dodd, who in the past created a bill that would reimburse soldiers for there purchases, responded "that's totally unacceptable, and why this directive by the Pentagon needs to be scrutinized in much greater detail".
 



news.yahoo.com
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."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This is truly outrageous. A few weeks ago good friend of mine’s father was killed in Iraq. After he dismounted, he was engaged in a firefight and was shot through a gap on the side of his body armor. The equipment that he had been issued was simply inadequate. He could not afford the side protecting armor. The extra gear these men use(the ones who can afford it) need it.

How many men have to die just because some military contract ends up lining the pockets of the ones in power?
This kind of thing isn’t new, the original M-16 was an unreliable piece of junk, and our grunts would have been better off with a Korean era M-14s.


[edit on 30-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   



How many men have to die just because some military contract ends up lining the pockets of the ones in power?




Good question.

A lot more than already have, apparently. Too bad they don't count dismemberment and disability.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
First, my deepest and most heartfelt condolences on the loss of your friend's father. I can't imagine what you and his family must be going through. We've lost too many good people in Iraq.


How many men have to die just because some military contract ends up lining the pockets of the ones in power?
This kind of thing isn’t new, the original M-16 was an unreliable piece of junk, and our grunts would have been better off with a Korean era M-14s.


Believe it or not, the US military (particularly Rumsfeld) have been trying to streamline the government's acquisition process since the day they arrived in office. The loss of every soldier in Iraq & Afghanistan is felt very deeply by all of the top brass and I'm sure they are doing everything in their power to get the equipment that the troops need as quickly as possible.

Respectfully, if you have a specific example of someone lining their pockets - I think we'd all like to hear that. Otherwise ... well. I think the blanket accusation is a bit unfair.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   


Respectfully, if you have a specific example of someone lining their pockets - I think we'd all like to hear that. Otherwise ... well. I think the blanket accusation is a bit unfair.


For example"Duke" Cunningham
Can you tell me you don't believe there are more?



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   


A contributor voting NO on your submission: (submission) (war) Army bans privately purchased body armor. has indicated they did so because they feel your story may be too biased for ATSNN.


Biased? Do my suspicions of our government make me biased? Did I make any mention of the Left or the Right? Do you think any point of view other than your own, or anything that could directly, or indirectly, point to anything remotely negative about either party, as being biased??


"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."
-- Mark Twain, 1894



[edit on 30-3-2006 by uuhelpus]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
my local paper had an article in it this week about irag stationed marines not wearing their newly issued ceramic body armor becuase of its bulk and weight. they said it slowed them down getting in/out of their humvees and while doing dynamic entries. go figure.


although i think it is great that they have the option.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
The equipment is tested and approved for use by the soldiers. A whole wad of money is spent on that. The soldier does not spend money on testing. Not all armour is the same, and the soldier might buy his armour because of the pretty pics in the magazine.

To assume that armour bought from a magazine or an Army/Navy store would do better without anything more to go on than this is mere speculation, and to assume that a soldier is going to be totally protected and still be mobile is asking way too much.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   


and to assume that a soldier is going to be totally protected and still be mobile is asking way too much.


At this current time.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The equipment is tested and approved for use by the soldiers. A whole wad of money is spent on that.



The side armor does provide some protection. If you were stuck in the rain, would you take a poncho? Its not a house, but it offers some protection.

Speaking of equipment testing, ever heard of "The Pentagon wars?"



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Yeah.

They don't want to lose that loot they can get when our men get shot in the govt issued armor. Remember that guy who had to pay 700$ for the armor that "he" messed up? ChemicalLaser asks for evidence of greed? All I gotta say is Halliburton.
And who was it that has that quote about the troops being nothing but cannon fodder? Was it Kissinger? Rumsfeld? I'll have to look that one up.


Originally posted by ChemicalLaser
The loss of every soldier in Iraq & Afghanistan is felt very deeply by all of the top brass and I'm sure they are doing everything in their power to get the equipment that the troops need as quickly as possible.


Man, I don't know whether to laugh or to puke after that statement. Guess I'll do both...



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
I did read an article a while ago, stating that 7 US Generals operating in Afghanistan had all been issued with the Dragon Skin armour, and that was confirmed by the comapny that makes the stuff.
Seems it's ok for Generals but not the troops?

The guy who, I belive, currently has the supply contract for the US military body armour has become stinking rich and even threw a party for his 13 year old daughter costing $13M USD. Flew in big name stars and political guests, no doubt to thank them for the business, whilst the armour shown to be substandard.

The lives of troops mean nothing when there's money to be made and political capital to be gained. They are tools to do a job, if one gets broken then just get another, and another, and another....etc.....etc.....



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   
the debacle with current armor and the other basic upgrades american infantry are doing without because of huge budget big war programs will be debated for decades after this war ends. But this is a lawyer controlled war, and each and every guy on the ground is now in the position to choose a higher likelihood of survival over a guaranteed death benefit for their loved ones. Over all it's a raw deal for our guys on the ground, but short of support from home, they are stuck with the hand they are dealt. Second chance armour is suspect in the extreme but it's cheap.

And the old military axiom has always been "remember your equipment is made by the lowest bidder"



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
I did read an article a while ago, stating that 7 US Generals operating in Afghanistan had all been issued with the Dragon Skin armour


I didn't read but heard, that it was two and they wore them for evaluation purposes.
This story being the origin of the whole controversy, from what is recalled.


[edit on 31-3-2006 by ADVISOR]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR

Originally posted by Britguy
I did read an article a while ago, stating that 7 US Generals operating in Afghanistan had all been issued with the Dragon Skin armour

I didn't read but heard, that it was two and they wore them for evaluation purposes.
This story being the origin of the whole controversy, from what is recalled.
[edit on 31-3-2006 by ADVISOR]


How do Generals "evaluate" armor by wearing them? How often do generals take a bullet?
I tried to search here, "general" isn't
even a search option. Quick search on the net found nothing either, at least not US Generals.
An Iraq general got shot "on patrol", which seems odd, how many Generals do patrols?



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Here's a thread that will give you all some more background on this story.

Massive recall of faulty vests



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 05:48 AM
link   
WELL THEN BUY THEM DAMNED STUFF FOR THEM. One of the dumbest, boneheadest, stupidist ideas that the Republicans have ever come up with is privatization and to have the military do point of purchase ordering. There was a good reason why we stockpiled supplies, SO THE TROOPS WOULD HAVE THEM WHEN THEY NEEDED THEM!!! Mr "oh we go to war with what we have" Dumbsfeld needs to be put on a Baghdad street without adequate protection for a couple days. Under privatization of the military we have troops who don't do anything but train, contractors take care of KP and all that other daily stuff we did. Sounds good but seems like we are always getting overcharged...thank you Halliburton...spend 1/2 billion on new airplanes and as little as possible on the people. Bright!!! The BS about point of purchase ordering, is it takes time to make things and if it isn't in the contractors interest to be on time and to quality...well too bad boys. Oh bidding will keep it honest. Bullhooey...the contractor is'nt looking out for the troops he is looking out for his profits and you know damned good and well, they will squeese out every drop they can.

The point is this, if you are going to put our troops in harms way (regardless the reason, trumped up or not) do right by them...with their supplies, their munitions and after they get out, wounded or not. All this flag waving jingoistic bullhooey about supporting our troops doesn't mean jack if they are not actually supported properly where it counts, on the field. To claim that dissenting the war is bad for morale is a load, not having what you need is.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Legalizer
how many Generals do patrols?


Washington, Patton, MacArthur to name at least three.
My favorite three any how, as there are many others, just far and few between.

Can't speak for the current Generals, I havn't served with them.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by ADVISOR]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   
isn't this the same army that was suggesting the families of these men and women serving in Iraq hold fundraisers so they could buy them this armor, since the army couldn't get it to them??

first they want them to go to such extremes to make up for their shortcomings, then they ban the things??

I also remember seeing an article about some of the armor was found to be defective before the army bought it, and they bought is anyways....they still using this defective armor?

we need to ban washington, it would solve alot of problems.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   
isn't this the same army that was suggesting the families of these men and women serving in Iraq hold fundraisers so they could buy them this armor, since the army couldn't get it to them??

first they want them to go to such extremes to make up for their shortcomings, then they ban the things??

I also remember seeing an article about some of the armor was found to be defective before the army bought it, and they bought is anyways....they still using this defective armor?


billions of dollars have been put into this war, and they've failed to provide the troops with the equipment they need...
then they decide they don't want the troops to go ahead and get what they need on their own?

we need to ban washington, it would solve alot of problems.


[edit on 31-3-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Found this article interesting:

www.military.com... tory_file=%2Fnewsfiles%2F78927%2Ehtm

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Britguy]

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Britguy]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join