U.S. soldiers lack best protective gear (Why dont our Soldiers have enough Flak Jackets?)

USA Today ^ | 12/17/03 | Jonathan Turley

[PattonReincarnated]

>> We are in our 3rd year of the President Bush
>> Administration and it is high time that "This is a
>> Clinton Administration Policy" cop out stop being used.

You got me. I have to admit I just like picking on Clinton. I'll give Bush a partial break because I know how long procurement cycles are in the military. But I certainly haven't heard Bush or his Adminstration yell and scream about this one, nor the state of readiness of the rest of the military. I have a friend in the NY Gaurd and his doesn't have ammo for target practice. More Leadership is needed.

[jim35]

You know, I'm beginning to suspect that it may be difficult, perhaps even impossible, to keep our soldiers completely safe in hostile, enemy ridden, areas. If this continues, we may have to risk American lives when we go to war. So until we can make sure we never send another soldier into battle without their safety being completely guaranteed, let's just join the French! Jeez, everyone wants maximum protection, but this is starting to sound like a whine-fest.

[xzins]

This is a red herring.

Every new item of equipment is "fielded" according to a purchase and distribution plan.

Given that one year ago we weren't in a war in Iraq, and given that any improvements in body armor were being implemented by a plan , then there is no fault here.

One issue might be that the manufacturing base of the US has been eroded so badly that we CANNOT REACT to a sudden increased order in this industry.

I don't know that's an issue here, but it is an interesting discussion.


Also, the author said this. *****Gen. John Abizaid, head of all military forces in Iraq, admitted he could not give House members a good reason "why we started this war with protective vests that were in short supply." *****

I believe this is a misrepresentation of Gen Abizaid's words. Generals are politicians, too. No sane general would say the above in the manner indicated. I'd have to see that quote in it's entirety and in context before I'd believe this was said.

[XHogPilot]

But I certainly haven't heard Bush or his Adminstration yell and scream about this one, nor the state of readiness of the rest of the military. I have a friend in the NY Gaurd and his doesn't have ammo for target practice. More Leadership is needed.

I'd say a new leader is needed. As I previously said, when my unit found we were headed for combat, we unit funded those items we needed. Gee, no new desks, freshly painted walls, or the lastest laptops vs practice ammo and kevlar armored vests. Not a hard choice for a good commander.

By the way, when clinton was my "commander", I claimed tax deductions for all personal 9mm and 5.56mm ammo. The USAF official 50 rounds of 9mm and the same of 5.56mm every two or three years was absolutely insufficient training. Never had the guts to claim depreciation on my personal weapons though.

[meyer]

In World War II, my grandmother bought my father a Kabar knife "just like the ones that the marines carry" because he wasn't issued one in the Army. I'm sure that a similar question about Kabar knives was once asked.

On the other hand, he was issued a BAR for which I'm extremely jealous.

[optimistically_conservative]

See also the Defense Department story on the body armor.

Here is the website of the manufacturer of Interceptor body armor -- Point Blank DHB Industries. The company that makes the armor says it saw revenue increase 80 percent from the previous year. DHB maintains facilities in Carle Place, N.Y.; Oakland Park, Fla.; Deerfield Beach, Fla.; Jacksboro, Tenn.; and Alexandria, Va.

Buying own gear is common for troops

By John Diamond, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — When Army Col. Mike Smith got the order to deploy to Afghanistan in 2001, he reached for his wallet. Smith wanted a pair of boots that could stand up to the rocky terrain, something he knew his Army-issue footwear wouldn't do.

Now Smith is a senior officer in the Army unit that equips front-line soldiers. He was not surprised when an internal "lessons learned" study of equipment used in the war in Iraq turned up a long list of gear so ill-regarded by soldiers that they spent their own money to modify or replace it.

The field investigation by the Army's Program Executive Office Soldier, where Smith works, found that soldiers spent their own money on extra pockets for their uniforms, better sights for their firearms, a more practical holster for their pistol, global-positioning-system units that outperform Army-issue equipment, tougher soles for their boots, and socks and underwear to keep cool in the desert.

"It has been a common practice," Smith said. "I've done it before I went over to Afghanistan. I certainly pulled out my wallet and bought some stuff, boots and things like that. You'll never reduce that to zero, but we want to get it as close to zero as we can."

A copy of the study, still in draft form, was obtained by USA TODAY. It details feedback from interviews with about 75 front-line soldiers in Iraq about a month after the fall of Baghdad. Interviews with hundreds more will be included in the more detailed final report.

The soldiers aren't reimbursed for their purchases, though in some cases, a unit commander might spend limited sums on an item deemed essential for an upcoming mission. Army officials said they had no data on how much a typical combat soldier spends on battlefield equipment.

The Army has surveyed its foot soldiers for years to find out how equipment is working in battle. But only recently have Congress and the Pentagon managed to change bureaucracy-heavy procurement rules so the Army can translate what it learns into action.

Embarrassed by the specter of soldiers dipping into their modest pay to equip themselves, the Army has responded with a "rapid fielding initiative" to get improved equipment to the battlefront as quickly as possible. Over the next four years, the Army is considering spending about $400 million on improvements so soldiers won't have to spend their own money.

A similar survey of soldiers deployed to Afghanistan spurred the Army to accelerate distribution of body armor, Wiley X sunglasses, Rhino GPS units and a special multitool device that is sort of a super pocketknife. The .50-caliber XM-107 sniper rifle, which saw some use in Afghanistan, was used more widely in Iraq, where it was regarded as the single most useful weapon in urban warfare. Snipers were convinced that the rifle's firepower intimidated Iraqis who saw its devastating effects.

One Army sniper told the investigative team: "My spotter positively identified a target at 1,400 meters (almost a mile away) carrying an RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) on a water tower. I engaged the target. The top half of the torso fell forward out of the tower and the lower portion remained in the tower."

The report, written by Army Lt. Col. Jim Smith, no relation to his boss, recounted the enthusiastic reaction of soldiers to body armor. One crewman in an M-1 tank took some ribbing from comrades for wearing body armor inside the tank — until he was hit in the chest by an Iraqi bullet while he was half out of the turret firing the tank's machine gun. The body armor absorbed the bullet, and the crewman — though knocked back into the turret by the bullet's impact — was fine. After that, other M-1 crewmen asked for similar protection, according to the report.

"Soldiers have great confidence in their body armor," the team reported. "As one battalion commander stated, 'Soldiers felt comfortable trolling for contact because they felt their body armor provided sufficient protection.' "

Reforms designed to streamline the way the military buys equipment have been long in coming. During his career, retired Army colonel Kenneth Allard headed a team that recommended the Army make much more extensive use of commercial off-the-shelf purchases to equip its force. That recommendation was in 1994.

Perhaps no item is more important to the foot soldier than the combat boot — and the ones that went to Iraq were not popular.

"Soldiers were generally dissatisfied with the performance of the Desert Combat Boot," particularly those made by Altama Footwear of Atlanta. "The soles were too soft and were easily damaged by the terrain," the draft report states. Some soldiers had the boots re-soled with tougher tread, but with mixed results.

Col. Smith said the Army is also looking "very closely" at soldiers' complaints that the springs in the magazines of their standard-issue Beretta 9mm pistols did not always have enough strength to feed a new round into the firing chamber. Army experts think the problem stems from the fine Iraqi sand, which could have gotten into the magazine. But they have not ruled out the need for a redesigned ammunition clip, Smith said.

Representatives of Altama and Beretta did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

[Ranger]

Sir, I can confirm that the General's quote was accurately recorded. There is not excuse for the lack of body armor (old armor was being amortized over 10 years) and there is no excuse for the lack of adequatge up-armored humvee production. To say that a guerilla war could not be anticipated 2 years from 9-11 and almost a year since the administration decided to go to war against Iraq, is nonsense. Officers in country have been screaming for both items since the beginning. Unfortunately there is enough idiocy within the DoD and administration to go around. What we need most is a focused effort to get production of all critical items, vests, ammo, armed vehicles into a war time production rate asap. Our troops deserve it and we deserve some action from our leadership.

[xzins]

That said, I agree it should be fielded as quickly as possible.

The initial question remains, though. What is the time it takes the manufacturer to produce one vest?

If we need to supply all ground troops first, then that's the army and marines (+ NG/Reserve) and air force security. Then the air force and navy. We're talking initially about 500,000 vests with a total order of 2-3 million.

Can the manufacturing base handle that or has it been too eroded?

[Ranger]

If we focus right now on those in country we are talking about perhaps 130-150K units not counting what has already been produced. I've received assurances from senators on the armed services committee that the pentagon has represented to them that that sufficient vests for in country troops will be supplied within the next few months. We should be monitoring this very carefully and hold them to that timeline. From what I can tell, the delay in vests had to do with funding priorties and bureaucratic amortization of existing vests over 10 years. Bottomline, poor planning by the pentagon. In fact the only reason they got moving was because congressmen's constituents started screaming at them about their sons and daughters being shipped off with inadequate equipment. You can count me in that category.

[Eagle Eye]

Whining.

Yep, whining.

Up until very recently combat troops did not have body armor at all. That was combat troops. Now we're upset because ALL troops don't have the BEST body armor.

Sheesh.

[doug from upland]

This is unforgiveable. I love this commander in chief, but where is he on this issue?

[doug from upland]

Is it time for a FReeper fundraiser for vests?