Army Bans Use of Privately Bought Armor

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer

Friday, March 31, 2006


    * Printable Version
    * Email This Article

(03-31) 00:45 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --

Just six months after the Pentagon agreed to reimburse soldiers who bought their own protective gear, the Army has banned the use of any body armor that is not issued by the military.

In a new directive, effective immediately, the Army said it cannot guarantee the quality of commercially bought armor, and any soldier wearing it will have to turn it in and have it replaced with authorized gear.

Army officials told The Associated Press on Thursday the order was prompted by concerns that soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial armor from private companies

Body armor is something I have brought up in here before.  And to be honest, this does not surprise me.

Most civilians have absolutely no idea how much R&D goes into every piece of military hardware.  It takes many years for an item to make it's way through the R&D and purchasing sytems before it makes it's way to the individual servicemen.  And they are no happier with it then civilians are, but that is the DOD.

Most times, this is done in order to protect the Serviceman.  If a critical flaw is found in a piece of equipment, it is better that it be found during testing then during use in combat.  And these items normally can not just be mass produced, because they are specialty items and it takes time for the manufacturers to produce enough quantites to be distributed to all the troops that need it.

Most projects take years if not decades to go from concept to deployment.  Look at the B-1, B-2, F-117, and F-22 projects.  Most of these started in the 1970's.  Look at the Joint Strike Fighter.  Even the M-16A2 was in R&D for over 12 years before it was deployed.  And the requirement that all contrators go through a bidding and Quality Assurance process slows this down even more.

And if somebody is injured or killed because an item turned out to be flawed (or the contractor did a poor job), who is to blame then?  Of course the Military, because it rushed things to fast.  This is a classic loose-loose situation.

Support the troops my @$$!




Cat

Better to have faulty than none at all.  R&D my $$. The armed services isn't all that great at getting the best.  During Viet Nam there was a significant problem with automatic weapons so poorly made they were heating up so fast the troops couldn't use them.  And then there was Agent Orange, perfectly safe for the soldiers to be covered in that stuff.

If commercial body armor is found to be defective or substandard, the army should issue warnings about which products and what has been found to be wrong with them.

I think our soldiers just need to have the info on the products, and then they can make their own decisions whether or not to spend their money on them.

If commercial body armor is found to be defective or substandard, the army should issue warnings about which products and what has been found to be wrong with them.

I think our soldiers just need to have the info on the products, and then they can make their own decisions whether or not to spend their money on them.


I agree.  There's no reason to restrict soldiers who need extra protection from buying it, but its right to let them know what they're buying.  Still, some protection even if its not that great is better than none.

OK, here is yet another of my little articles.  If you do not care to know about history, move along.

Armour has been used by the US Military since the First World War.

The systems researched during that conflict was a metal plate body armor, and a steel helmet.  The body armour proved to be to heavy and cumberson, and was dropped.  However, the M-1917 steel helmet was approved for combat use.  This was a copy of the Brittish "Doughboy" helmet.  It was all steel, with a cotton webbing rivited into it.

However, it was lacking in coverage area, so in 1938 research was started into a replacement.  In June 1941, the M-1 was approved.  This was a steel helmet, with a Fiberglass inner shell.  This allowed a cloth cover to be placed to help camouflage the wearer.

In 1940, research was started into body armour again.  Since this was a steel plate model, it was discarded for use in the field.  However, it was realized that air crews could benefit from it's use, since they were not hampered as much by the weight and restriction in movement.  This became the M-12 "Flack Jacket".  It was useless in protecting against bullets, but it helped protect the wearer from shrapnel from German Flack guns.

After the war, R&D largely stopped.  In 1947, the advent of "Ballistic Nylon" lead to the development of new forms of body armor.  In 1951, the M-1951 Vest was approved for use by combat troops.  This was an improvement of the M-12, but with ballastic nylon.  It was still heavy (12 lbs), and wearers were prone to overheating.  The design went through some minor changes, finally resulting in the M-1952A.  This saw limited use in Korea, because the only supplier was only able to manufacture 20,000 vests before the end of the conflict.  This vest was effective against 75% of shrapnel, and 25% of small arms fire.

At the beginning of the Vietnam conflict, the troops had a new vest, the M-1955.  Early models of fiberglass trauma plates were added to the base of the vest, and the amount of ballistic nylon was increased.  This vest weighed 10 lbs 3 oz.  The Army declined to use it, so it only saw service in the Marine Corps.

In 1969, the M-1969 vest was put into service.  This vest was 8 years in development, and was only a minor improvement over the M-1955 and M-1952A.  It was basically an M-1955, but with the addition of 2 flaps on the collar.  These could be flipped up, giving some protection to the neck area.

Development did not resume again until 1975.  The "Improved Conventional Munitions" vest was tested, and was the first vest to use Kevlar.  But the problems at that time with durability and seperation of the Kevlar layers prevented it from being adopted.  Research stopped, and did not resume until 1982.

The first to appear was the PASGT (Personal Armor System Ground Troops) Helmet.  This entered service in 1984, and was made of alternating layers of Kevlar, Resin, and Fiberglass.  Unlike the "one size fits all" M-1, this helmet was made in 5 different sizes to more closely fit the shape of the wearer's head.  This was the first change in head protection since World War II.

Later that same year, the PASGT Vest made it's appearance.  This vest was made of Kevlar, and the seperation problems had been eliminated.  This vest weighed 10 lbs, and was the first vest that was 45% effective against small arms fire.  An inner vest was also designed, that would protect the wearer against 85% of small arms fire, but this increased the weight to 25 lbs.  This made it impracticle for use in combat.

In 1994, a new vest called "The Interceptor" was requested by the US Army Rangers.  This was a modification of the PASGT, but it was changed to work with a new integrated equipment system.  Also a trauma plate was designed to be inserted into the front.  The cest weighed 9 lbs, and the plate (if worn) added another 8 lbs to the weight.

At this time, there was only one company with the capability to make them, so they saw only limited service.  In 2002 the production was increased to the maximum allowed, but only 35,000 were ready by the time of the Afganistan and Iraqi conflicts.

In 2003, the need for a trauma plate insert was realized, so all production of the Interceptor were haulted and shifted entirely to making Plates that could be used with the PASGT armor.  The Marines required almost 95,000 plates, and the Army required over 400,000 plates.  This was finally realized in mid-2005, when production was finally able to meet demand.

During the Afganistan conflict, it was realized that the Interceptor needed more work.  Among the complaints of soldiers in the field was the inability to quickly shed gear in a combat situation.  In addition, the weight was causing more heat problems because of the increased weight. 

Part of the solution was to make it possible to quickly drop the trauma plate and crotch attachments.  In addition, webbing was put into the right side.  This webbing is covered by a velcro Kevlar panel during combat.  But the kevlar panel could be opened to increase ventilation and cooling when the threat risk is low.  Production of the new Interceptor has been restarted on a limited basis.

The reason that the Interceptor is not in full use is because of a problem that they are still trying to find a solution for.  The closeness and weight of the armor has been causing loss of circulation in the arms and shoulders.  This can lead to numbness of the arms, and even the arms "falling asleep".  Since this is not acceptible in a combat situation, the vest is still being researched.  Until this problem is solved, the Interceptor will only see limited use, and the PAGST with the ballistic trauma plate will be the standard body armour.

***

Hopefully this has given some people a better idea of what research goes into body armour, and why it often takes so long for new models to appear.  At this time, Point Blank Body Armor of Oakland Park, FL. is still the only company certified to make the Ballistic inserts.  3 other companies have made contract bids, but none of their products were able to pass Q&A testing.  So until one of them passes, Point Blank is the only source of both trauma plates and Interceptor Body Armour.

Another problem with the Interceptor is the integrated plate design.  With the plate, the armour weighs in at 17 lbs.  And the plate restricts the movement of the wearer, which can cause problems in combat.  If the plate is removed, the weight drops to 9 lbs.  But at that time, the armour becomes even less effective then the older PASGT system.

PAGST weighs in at 10 lbs, 19 lbs with the trauma plate.  Because of the weight and restriction, most troops do not wear it unless there is a chance of combat.  Most of the time, they carry it in their packs until it is needed.

The order allowing the use of civilian trauma plates was made when Point Blank was unable to meet the demand.  A lot of the plates being used now were made by companies that failed the Q&A of the miiltary.  As of 2005, all troops in the combat zones have approved trauma plates.  The order to stop useing civilian models was made to ensure that all plates meet military specifications.

But many were sent in with no armor.  Thats why they bought it.  Why is it right to make them go armorless?  Because theres a chance it may defective?  Defective armor is still better than NO armor which is what the Army sent them over with in the first place. :D

This should give people an idea of what I saw when I was in the military.

When I was in basic training (1983), I was issued the good old M-1969 vest and M-1 helmet.  This is the same equipment that everybody used at the time.

In 1984, I was assigned to a security detachment, and was issued a set of "Second Chance" armour.  This was to be used on dute, because they did not want civilians to know that we wore armour at all times.  We were still issued M-1969 and M-1 for use in security drills and alerts.

In 1985, we were finally issued the PASGT system.  This was the armour and helmet that I used until I got out in 1993, and is the predominant armour in use today.

And I forgot, there is also research being done on the next generation of helmet.

In 2004, 2 designs entered final reviews.  These are the Modular Integrated Communications Helmet (MICH) and the Advanced Combat Helment (ACH).

The ACH is seeing field testing with Army units at this time.  The major advantage of the ACH is being of a newer generation of Kevlar.  This helmet provides more protection, and resists a larger range of projectiles.  It also increases the visual capability of the wearer.  However, this comes at the cost of decreased protection.  The ACT has a noticeably smaller level of protection, only reaching the middle of the ear and following that line along the back of the neck.  The PASGT helmet rests below the ear, and provides protection to the base of the neck.  The Marine Corps has declined to use this helmet, because of the decrease in protective area.

The MICH is a more radical design.  This is expected to be the next generation of helmet, intigrating radio communications, night vision, GPS, and gas mask into one system.  This helmet will more closely follow the size and shape of the PASGT helmet.  It is still in testing however, because most of the modular components (GPS. Radio, Night Vision) are still under development.  It is not expected to see wide use until 2008-2010.

You're still not addressing my question. :D

Are you a magician?

But many were sent in with no armor.  Thats why they bought it.  Why is it right to make them go armorless?  Because theres a chance it may defective?  Defective armor is still better than NO armor which is what the Army sent them over with in the first place. :D


Nobody was going in without armour!  Nobody, nobody, nobody!

The issue was about trauma plates, not armour itself.  If you read the original article itself, it states exactly that.  The order allowing the use of "Civilian armour" covered the purchase of trauma plates, and armour to provide protection of the genitals.  This was something that was not available with the original PAGST design.  This is something that has been solved with the addition of the "codpiece" attachment and the SAPI (Small Arms Protective Insert) trauma plate.

The PASGT armour has been in universal use since 1985.  It saw use for all combat units in 1984, and was in use by all military members by 1985.

The article that was originally posted in here states "the Army said it cannot guarantee the quality of commercially bought armor".  And like I said earlier, a lot of the armour purchased during the period of low supply was made by companies that failed the Q&A tests of the DOD.  The military could (and should) not issue equipment that is poor quality, but they allowed people to buy their own, since some protection is better then no protection.  But they would not issue known faulty equipment, since that could increase casualties.  Now that the supply problems have been solved, they are telling them to turn in the substandard equipment and to use the equipment that has passed the tests required by the DOD.

(The post proceeding this was not geared to your question, it was covering something I forgot to mention in my earlier post.  This one answers your most recent question).

PS: I am not a magician, simply a mind reader.  8)

But they would not issue known faulty equipment, since that could increase casualties.  Now that the supply problems have been solved, they are telling them to turn in the substandard equipment and to use the equipment that has passed the tests required by the DOD.



I just can't stop my cynical side(we are dealing with the US government) that says the payoffs weren't in, and once they were the passing grades for the equipment came in.  I just don't have the same faith in the government that you do.

I just can't stop my cynical side(we are dealing with the US government) that says the payoffs weren't in, and once they were the passing grades for the equipment came in.  I just don't have the same faith in the government that you do.


Remember the screams of 3 years ago, when there was not enough of the trauma plates to go around.  The DOD was frantically trying to find anybody that could make them.

Trauma Plates are not unique to the military, civilian law enforcement uses them also.  However, the plates that the police use normally only provide protection up to 5.56mm projectiles.  The requirement for the military trauma plates is designed to exceed a 7.72mm round.

Also, the civilian models were not designed to fit into the pockets provided in the PASGT armour.  Many workarounds had to be used in order to get them to fit.  For some, that meant cutting them, which weakened the product.  The SAPT inserts that are provided fit in properly, and give a higher level of protection.

If you do not trust the system of contractors, that is not the fault of the Military.  Remember, all contracting and supplies come from the Department Of Defense, a civilian agency.  Those civilians are the ones that say yea or nay to what the military wants, and awards the contracts and pays the bills.  The military is simply stuck with the equipment that is provided by the lowest bidder.