|
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.
|