Less body armor might be the answer in Afghanistan

Richard · 03-10-2009, 10:54

Interesting article considering it was the USMC who were always wearing their Flak Vests and helmets on ops when we were wearing jungle fatigues and soft caps.

Richard's $.02

Less body armor might be the answer in Afghanistan
AP, 10 Mar 2009

Heavy layers of body armor, a proven lifesaver of U.S. troops, also may be an impediment to winning the fight in Afghanistan, where 17,000 additional American forces are being sent to quell rising violence.

Weighing as much as 34 pounds each, the protective vests hinder American forces hunting down more agile insurgents who use the country's rugged peaks and valleys to their advantage, according to military officials.

The proper balance between troop safety and mobility will be examined this week during a series of oversight hearings by the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. Beginning Tuesday, senior Army and Marine Corps leaders are scheduled to testify on a wide range of subjects, including force protection, readiness levels and ergonomic injuries.

When body armor is added to the assault rifles, ammunition, water and other essential gear troops are required to carry, they can be lugging as much as 80 pounds into combat. Besides moving more slowly, overburdened troops tire more quickly and are prone to orthopedic injuries that can take them out of action, the officials say.

But convincing a war-weary public of a less-is-more approach won't be easy, they acknowledge. If a commander decides the gear shouldn't be used for a particular mission and a service member is killed, there could be a backlash, said Jean Malone, deputy director of experiment plans at the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab in Quantico, Va.

"We've got to have the internal fortitude to come back and say: 'We have the data. We made the right decision. We can't guarantee you that nobody will die in this war,'" he said.

Paring down the amount of armor could actually make troops safer on the battlefield, officials say. Speed and maneuverability give them the best chance of killing or capturing the Taliban and other militants before they can set roadside bombs or get in position for an ambush.

"Being able to maneuver and fight and chase down a fleeing enemy; that's actually where your protection is (versus) armoring up and being more static," said Brig. Gen. Tim Hanifen, deputy commanding general of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command at Quantico.

The loads carried by modern American troops are equivalent to those "the medieval knight wore into and out of battle back in the year 1000 until about the 16th century," he said.

Bomb-resistant vehicles that are light and nimble enough to handle Afghanistan's primitive roads are also needed, according to Hanifen. Trucks that worked well in Iraq, which has a comparatively sophisticated transportation network, may be less suitable in harsher terrains.

As troop levels are surging in Afghanistan, so are roadside bomb attacks, according to the Pentagon's Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.

In January and February, 52 IED attacks in Afghanistan killed 32 coalition troops and wounded 96 more, according to preliminary figures from the organization. During the same two months in 2008, 21 IED attacks killed 10 troops and wounded 39.

Body armor has become a focus of Marine Corps efforts to lighten troop loads because it weighs so much more than the other gear. The standard kit consists of hardened composite plates inserted into a ballistic vest. The vest and plates protect the upper body from armor-piercing bullets and shrapnel.

Personal armor made of substantially lighter composite materials that are more effective than current models won't be available for several years. So the Marine Corps is looking for near-term solutions.

The Marine Corps is buying 65,000 vests called "scalable plate carriers" that weigh under 20 pounds. The carrier, which uses the same plates as the standard vest, doesn't cover as much of the torso. About 14,000 of the plate carriers have been fielded and the feedback has been positive, according to Marine Corps officials.

Over the next two weeks, the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab is conducting an experiment at Camp Pendleton, Calif., to assess the risks of using less armor. The results of the trials will help guide battlefield commanders who make the final call on what gear troops should use.

Bechorg · 03-10-2009, 12:04

Seems like something to look into. It seemed like it would be almost impossible to chase down a Tban if we had to if he had any sort of head start, even if he didnt, it will break people off.

Climbing mountains with body armor can be a very big mistake if the troops arent conditioned- added to the weight of 240b's etc.

Changes need to be made in the weight of the armor. Taking it off is not the ideal solution- one US soldiers life is worth 1000 members of the taliban.

FMF DOC · 03-10-2009, 12:47

My last tour in Iraq I was with Small Craft Co. (USMC) we wore just he sappy plate and small carrier, then with a ammo carrier... The main reason was because we operated on the water most of the time and the quick release on the sappy plate vest was available if we happen to go in the water. But if was alot more maneuverable. I treated several wounded that both had the full flak and just the sappy plate & carrier and for the most part it did not seem to help or hinder either way. I'm sure everyone would welcome a lighter more maneuverable system that still keeps safety in mind. I'm interested in seeing what they come up with.

Dozer523 · 03-10-2009, 13:04

That's a very interesting line of thought. My early years were with Mech-Armor Teams and Task Forces. Speed and Safety were practically synonymous – Shoot, Move, Communicate. According to this article, body armor issue seems to have been Public Relations; more in response to soldiers buying their own and the public outrage that accompanied “you go to war with the army you have” (I think I quoted Sec Rumsfeld correctly – from memory). Support the troops does seem to be focused on getting us cool stuff. (I’m not complaining!)
When I was issued body armor I didn’t attach any equipment to it. I was called “old school” by the “weebles”. I didn't like being an ammo pouch higher then I had to be, nor did I like that it felt like I was trying to ballance myself in the prone. (Don't stand when you can kneel, don't kneel when you can lay down.) I loved the Molle vest, when I got that. My thinking was, if I had to beat-feet, E&E, whatever, I don’t want to be weighed / slowed down but I still want to have all my bullets and personal equipment. If survival comes down to trusting how fast / far I could move and whether bullets might bounce off, I’d choose speed and endurance (and hope they are lousy shots). And there is the injury part of it, I’m not sure I want to survive if my injuries are catastrophic. BA is allowing soldiers to survive some pretty awful injuries. But, that is just thinking . . . never having been exposed to it. This one is a big “I don’t know”. But if I was alive but an invalid . . . I don’t know. I have DNR conditions spelled out for the civilian side of me but while deployed, I doubt the Medics and Docs are going to check.

Blitzzz (RIP) · 03-10-2009, 13:09

Question...how much body armor was worn in SOG. No joke Light and fast when necessary is the way I would play.. The more body armor you wear the MORE you need. I am old style and feel I'd play on the same mobility levels as the guys I am chasing. Stay alert stay alive. Blitzzz

Dozer523 · 03-10-2009, 13:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzzz

Question...how mush body armor was wore in SOG. No joke Light and fast when necessary is the way I would play.. The more body armor you wear the MORE you need. I am old style and feel I'd play on the same mobility levels as the guys I am chasing. Stay alert stay alive. Blitzzz

Like the old saying "Hard for the enemy to get in, means hard for us to get out"

Sigaba · 03-10-2009, 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

But convincing a war-weary public of a less-is-more approach won't be easy, they acknowledge. If a commander decides the gear shouldn't be used for a particular mission and a service member is killed, there could be a backlash, said Jean Malone, deputy director of experiment plans at the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab in Quantico, Va.

"We've got to have the internal fortitude to come back and say: 'We have the data. We made the right decision. We can't guarantee you that nobody will die in this war,'" he said.

IMHO, the fact that public opinion would factor into the consideration of equipment speaks volumes into the dysfunctions in civil military relations on the civilian side of the equation.

I think we sheep need to let the sheepdogs and the shepherds do their jobs as they see fit in their judgment as professionals. This isn't to say we don't have a role to play in defining America's national interests or the formulation of grand strategy or insisting that civilian leaders provide a reasonable amount of oversight and ask tough questions when necessary, but on operational issues we need to trust the experts.

Next thing you know, patients will be second guessing their brain surgeons while an operation is in progress. "Doc, I did sleep in Holiday Inn Express last night and that's not the way I'd do it...."

Max_Tab · 03-10-2009, 19:16

This one is an easy fix. Let the soldier decide what he want's to wear. If something happens he still get's full benefit's, but in the end it was his decision.

That would never happen, too many officer's and NCO's like uniformity too much, but it would solve all the problems.

TFtim · 03-10-2009, 19:46

A co, 1st platoon 1-75 Rangers, scaling the mountain of Takhur Ghar to reach their brothers under fire, were so encumbered by their body armor that the SSG in charge of the element had his dudes ditch their plates. He told his guys, "That's the most expensive frisbee you'll ever throw.." when they tossed their plates down the mountain. Funny part of this story is when we got back to the US there was talk of hitting that guy up with a statement of charges for the plates...freaking amazing.

Richard · 03-10-2009, 21:27

IMO we seem to have lost the ability to reason - to reasonably understand that MOUT or convoy operations have parameters that don't necessarily transfer to all other environments...and vice versa.

We wore kevlar vests with ceramic inserts for CQB - we never wore vests in the tropics or the mountains or the forests or the deserts. Our SOPs and training were environment specific and varied quite dramatically as far as equipment, tactics, weapons, uniform, etc.

But times change - and now I wear slacks, a dress shirt and tie. Some days I think I'd almost rather wear the body armor.

Richard's $.02

TOMAHAWK9521 · 03-11-2009, 10:40

I was never a fan of body armor. Started out in 2/75 back in the '80s where speed, violence of action and an unmerciful domination of the battlefield was the norm. I didn't get my first taste of body armor until A-Stan in 2001-02. My chassis was already due for a service overhaul for my fractured spine and chronically screwed-up knees. Frankly, I couldn't stand having to lumber around in all that "safety" crap. As for attempting hot pursuits of jackals in their man-dresses, unless you have legs like Tom Platz and the stamina of Lance Armstrong, you won't last long and the bugger will escape.

Men are not meant to be M2 Bradleys on 2 legs. IMHO I believe a majority of the body armor is BS. Yeah, I'm sure if I had ever taken a shot and walked away, my opinion might be different, but I believe armor should only be worn for specific missions. In Afghanistan, we never wore armor and drove around in Toyota Tacomas. If we knew we were going to hit a house or whatever, we’d pack our armor with us, stop outside town to put it on, and then hit it. After that, we’d toss the armor in the back and continue on.

Safety-focused critics may point out that the war was different because IED’s weren’t around back then, and that armor gives you a much greater chance of survival with it than without. However, I had a junior 18E for about 6 weeks in Khandahar. He and 3 of our EOD brothers were blown to pieces while trying to destroy a cache of 107mm rockets that had been rigged with a command-detonated booby trap. The only thing body armor would have saved would have been his upper torso.

I agree with the article in that we have lost our capability of speed, flexibility and mobility on the battlefield due to the added on armor. Quick, decisive military action is pretty much a thing of the past. Now, the US military moves with the speed and dexterity of a glacier. IMHO the body armor is symbolic of America’s current attitude towards warfare and the will to win. All one has to do is look at these sprawling “cities” the military has established in the two theaters. They’re bloated and top-heavy with bottom-feeders: REMFs; civilian and military bureaucracies; more field-grade and general-grade officers than you can shake a stick at; contractors; and support units that, IMO, don’t do enough to justify being there. I realize I’m going to be beset upon as that annoying little voice obliterated by the ensuing hurricane of scorn, but we really don’t need half that crap over there. The modern military, in general, is slow, fat and too safety-conscious. Dining facilities that are the envy of the Mall of America, Pizza Hut or Starbucks doesn’t make you a better warrior, it just allows you to become comfortable and therefore complacent and uneager (aka chicken-shit) to go outside the wire, do the job you were trained for, face the threat, and destroy it. War isn’t supposed to be safe and comfy. If you take away all the unnecessary luxuries and distractions then perhaps there will less incentive to linger around over there and the military will be more eager to go home to a real Pizza Hut.

But I digress.

As touched on in the article, another consequence of wearing all this junk is the long-term health issues. After 22 years of RGR/SF I am being medically retired for spinal damage and cartilage ground off of my knees. Some might say that after that much time, what would one expect? I'm an old guy by army standards, right? However, I believe the newest batch of young studs who are currently scampering all over the place with this crap on, will suffer similar physical problems but in a significantly shorter time frame.

One must also consider what will happen when this conflict opens up in a tropical theater. Body armor is a no-go. You try making guys wear that in someplace like Thailand, Indonesia or Panama, they’ll be dead or combat ineffective before sundown.

Pete S · 03-11-2009, 10:56

Excellent post Tomahawk.

For conventional forces, I don't see it changing military wide.
Maybe a few Battalion/Brigade commanders will take the initiative to reduce all the armor, but I doubt the majority will.

In 2006 on a MEU deployment our company (helobourne) wouldn't give us the quick release FSBE flacks because battalion uniformity was more important.
They also didn't try the helo dunker in Interceptor vests.

**Team Sergeant** · 03-11-2009, 11:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bechorg

one US soldiers life is worth 1000 members of the taliban.

I disagree, IMO one member of the US military is worth more than all the taliban.....

I believe we should return to carpet bombing and removing grid squares if there are taliban present.
I believe this and only this brutal method of war will change minds. I also believe it's time to remove the word "extremist" when referring to islamic individuals.

And I agree with Max Tab, let the individual (above the rank of SGT) decide if he wants to wear body armor or how much.

TS

Bechorg · 03-11-2009, 11:58

"We have lost our capability of speed, flexibility and mobility on the battlefield due to the added on armor. Quick, decisive military action is pretty much a thing of the past. Now, the US military moves with the speed and dexterity of a glacier. IMHO the body armor is symbolic of America’s current attitude towards warfare and the will to win. All one has to do is look at these sprawling “cities” the military has established in the two theaters. They’re bloated and top-heavy with bottom-feeders: REMFs; civilian and military bureaucracies; more field-grade and general-grade officers than you can shake a stick at; contractors; and support units that, IMO, don’t do enough to justify being there. I realize I’m going to be beset upon as that annoying little voice obliterated by the ensuing hurricane of scorn, but we really don’t need half that crap over there. The modern military, in general, is slow, fat and too safety-conscious. Dining facilities that are the envy of the Mall of America, Pizza Hut or Starbucks doesn’t make you a better warrior, it just allows you to become comfortable and therefore complacent and uneager (aka chicken-shit) to go outside the wire, do the job you were trained for, face the threat, and destroy it. War isn’t supposed to be safe and comfy. If you take away all the unnecessary luxuries and distractions then perhaps there will less incentive to linger around over there and the military will be more eager to go home to a real Pizza Hut."

VERY VERY VERY nicely put. Could it be, that even our own conventional army has lost the stomach for a grit in your teeth war?

Every time we rolled in to Bagram or Phoenix every single one of us had it on our minds. "What the hell are most of these people doing here?" and "Must be nice to have ONE decent tasting main dish, none the less 8"

If some of the money and assets trickled down to some of the more remote fobs many of us would feel more supported. Ill bet you Bagram and Kandahar have rocket/mortar radar, and I will also bet you 4/5 most dangerous FOB's and COP's do not in addition to thousands of others amentities.

Also agree with you team sgt..we need to carpet bomb the afghan/pakistan border villages .

Dozer523 · 03-11-2009, 19:52

[QUOTE=Bechorg;Every time we rolled in to Bagram or Phoenix every single one of us had it on our minds. "What the hell are most of these people doing here?"
We went to Phoenix for the Orange Julius!

At Eggers the majority of those assigned never saw any of Afghanistan EXCEPT for the drive from Bagram when they arrived and the drive back when they left. Most didn't know what the street on the other side of the wall looked like.