Soldiers forbidden to to buy better body armor?

[Drocket]

I'm sure everyone remembers the stories of soldiers and their families having to purchase their own equipment for their deployment to Iraq: well, it now appears that many of those soldiers are being forbidden to use that equipment:

The soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported that their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.

This would be entirely reasonable if the equipment was sub-standard. The items in question, though (Pinnacle Dragon Skin), are overwhelmingly considered better than the army-issued body armor (this would be the body armor that was recently the subject of a report indicating that 80% of the marines who died in Iraq could have been saved if they had better armor.)

One of the soldiers who lost his coveted Dragon Skin is a veteran operator. He reported that his commander expressed deep regret upon issuing his orders directing him to leave his Dragon Skin body armor behind. The commander reportedly told his subordinates that he "had no choice because the orders came from very high up" and had to be enforced, the soldier said. Another soldier's story was corroborated by his mother, who helped defray the $6,000 cost of buying the Dragon Skin, she said.

The requirement to wear sub-standard body armor, of course, does not apply to higher-ranking officers.

Currently nine U.S. generals stationed in Afghanistan are reportedly wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin body armor, according to company spokesman Paul Chopra. Chopra, a retired Army chief warrant officer and 20+-year pilot in the famed 160th "Nightstalkers" Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), said his company was merely told the generals wanted to "evaluate" the body armor in a combat environment.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

That sucks.

 

[alonzomourning23]

ummmm......... maybe they want soldiers to die?

 

[Ma12kez]

Yeah I got a letter about that in the mail a couple days ago. Pure BS.

 

[RBM]

I can imagine the hubbub which could ensue if the only survivors of a squad which came under heavy enemy fire turned out to be the more affluent members who could afford personally-purchased body armor.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='RBM']I can imagine the hubbub which could ensue if the only survivors of a squad which came under heavy enemy fire turned out to be the more affluent members who could afford personally-purchased body armor.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps that's what they're trying to reconcile. They may realize that, if those who could afford the armor lived while others died in greater numbers, there'd be a PR catastrophe on the Army's hands.

Knowing that, simply disallowing the armor (for any reason) is absurd.

if it isn't too much trouble, ma12kez, could you scan that letter?

 

[soulvengeance]

That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. Why wouldn't the insurance cover them, would it cover them if they wore no armor at all?

 

[a0bigboss]

it may be pointless to buy body armor anyhow since ak-47s and more powerful guns-plus mines, grenades etc appear to be being used on our soldiers on a daily basis (or I should better clearify which enemy insurgents have tried to use on our soldiers), makes it hard to have armor good enough to beat the bullets and chunks of metal flying in the air unfortunately

 

[Drocket]

[quote name='docvinh']That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. Why wouldn't the insurance cover them, would it cover them if they wore no armor at all?[/QUOTE]

Some people have investigated this claim, and its quite clear that wearing 'unauthorized' armor (or no armor, or anything at all) would NOT be a disqualifying factor a soldier's insurance. Pretty much the only way a soldier's insurance can be canceled is mutiny or desertion. Most soldiers (and people in general...) don't read the fine print, though, and generally believe what they're told, especially when higher-ranking military officials are the ones doing the telling...

 

[Drocket]

[quote name='a0bigboss']it may be pointless to buy body armor anyhow since ak-47s and more powerful guns-plus mines, grenades etc appear to be being used on our soldiers on a daily basis (or I should better clearify which enemy insurgents have tried to use on our soldiers), makes it hard to have armor good enough to beat the bullets and chunks of metal flying in the air unfortunately[/QUOTE]

If you're talking about the military issued body armor, you may be right. The quality of it is seems to be rather lacking:

An expert in contact with scientists at the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center-Natick told DefenseWatch they are currently dealing with breakage problems with the Interceptor's ceramic armor (SAPI) plates including unconfirmed reports that up to 60 percent of its hard armor sent to the field has broken when its gets slammed around.
-----
The so-called SAPI (Small Arms Protective Inserts) used in the Interceptor system are too fragile and incur about a 60% loss/replacement rate in the field because the design is inherently brittle and fractures when dropped or slammed into solid objects such as the ground.

Great armor - it apparently can't even survive a dive to the ground if/when you come under fire.

The body armor in question that the military is apparently forbidding soldiers to wear, though, is a whole other beast. This link contains links to other articles (as well as discussion about the topic in question) regarding its performance, and its quite impressive. AK-47 shots are a walk in the park for this stuff (as demonstrated by people in Iraq wearing it who have survived attacks that would have taken out anyone wearing the army's standard equipment.)

 

[MrBadExample]

With this war costing as much as it is, why don't the troops have the best armor to begin with? That would solve the problem of foxhole envy.

 

[E-Z-B]

It's been over a year since Rumsfeld was slammed about providing no body armor at the "pep rally" that he had for U.S. troops. And nothing's changed. These people are incompetent.

 

[Purkeynator]

This comes down to the fact that the government must submit for companies to bid on providing the needed item at the lowest cost. The lowest bidder wins the contract. The only way to circumvent this cheap armor from being bought is to raise the miniumum standards that the armor must pass to be a good bid on that contract.

 

[E-Z-B]

[quote name='Purkeynator']This comes down to the fact that the government must submit for companies to bid on providing the needed item at the lowest cost. The lowest bidder wins the contract. The only way to circumvent this cheap armor from being bought is to raise the miniumum standards that the armor must pass to be a good bid on that contract.[/QUOTE]

It must be the liberal media claiming that Halliburton got "no-bid contracts" since that cannot happen.

 

[Vampire Hunter D]

I always thought that our troops were equipped with the best of the best. And better as hell be now adays considering the amount of money being spent.