Army Bans Use of Privately Bought Armor

[kpete]

Army Bans Use of Privately Bought Armor By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear body armor other than the protective gear issued by the military, Army officials said Thursday, the latest twist in a running battle over the equipment the Pentagon gives its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Army officials told The Associated Press that the order was prompted by concerns that soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial armor from private companies — including the popular Dragon Skin gear made by California-based Pinnacle Armor.

"We're very concerned that people are spending their hard-earned money on something that doesn't provide the level of protection that the Army requires people to wear. So they're, frankly, wasting their money on substandard stuff," said Col. Thomas Spoehr, director of materiel for the Army.

Murray Neal, chief executive officer of Pinnacle, said he hadn't seen the directive and wants to review it.

"We know of no reason the Army may have to justify this action," Neal said. "On the surface this looks to be another of many attempts by the Army to cover up the billions of dollars spent on ineffective body armor systems which they continue to try quick fixes on to no avail."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_body_armor
via:http://www.rawstory.com/

[Peanutcat]

1. Whu--

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[hobbit709]

2. inadequate or untested commercial armor

is what the Army is providing. Evidently the private stuff means Halliburton ain't getting their cut.

[Ecumenist]

11. Well we wouldn't want Halliburton to have their

bottom lines impacted, no would we?:eyes:

[Nikki Stone1]

3. What, do they WANT these soldiers to die?

The army's gear was substandard. From what I have read, families were buying better gear.

[JuniperLea]

6. I think so

That way they don't have to worry about providing medical care if they are merely wounded. Oh, wait... they are trying to weasel out of that anyway. Never mind. Sick, huh?

[Supersedeas]

4. Dick Cheaty demands that Def Contractors get their cut--Lobbyists applaud

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. The soldiers would applaud, too.

If they weren't dead.

[beyurslf]

7. So untested armor is less safe than NO armor?

[gatorboy]

8. What the hell???

I thought they some in the army had suggested that they buy their own armor!

[im10ashus]

9. Dupe!

[Ecumenist]

10. Hmmm, I see...

Ban use of privately purchased armour so that the government has no competition when buying the crap that they're leasing to the troops and it also prevents comparison analysis when seeing that the armour given to the troops by their families hold up a hell of a lot better than the crap the military is unloading. Wonder what contractor has the no bid 99 gazillion contract to make up the government armour?

[taught_me_patience]

12. I agree

everybody should have the same armor.

[Occulus]

16. but it should BE the BEST FUCKING ARMOR EVER MADE

This is SHIT, just SHIT, and if I were over there, I would see this as grounds to "sever my contract", as it were.

No, don't bother telling me I "can't" do that if I'm there; we're talking about actions, not pretty words on a silly piece of paper. I would proudly wear that court martial as a badge of honor until the day I died, and if my actions inspired a general mutiny, so much more the better.

This. Cannot. Be. Borne. Our soldiers deserve the very best armor this planet has ever seen, and we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Army was not not NOT providing this before!

I want to know, too- which contractors "won" the "bid" to make armor? Did they contact the Army regarding "lost sales", or something?

Who made this decision? Can I have sauce on the platter along with his head?

[Lolivia]

13. Pinnacle's armor is incredible..

the fact that the army bureaurocracy refuses to field this is another failure of the guys on the ground. Supporting our troops through fat contracts to priviliged companies and dept. of defense researchers saving their jobs by refusing to deal with a better product.

Private contractors over there are using it. In one incident a contractor wearing Pinnacle armor was shot twice by rounds from an AK-47 and didn't even realize he'd been hit.

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=756

From the article: "However, we were involved in a IED (improvised explosive device) attack and small arms fire on the XXX of XXX 2005. After the contact, when I removed my tactical vest, I saw that I had taken hits in the back of my vest. They were 7.62x39mm (AK-47) and they were inches apart. I was hit in the back (and we checked, if I was wearing any other body armor, I would not be writing this to you), as it were both low hits (below the typical 10”x12” plate coverage). In terms of bruising, nothing whatsoever. I did not even KNOW that I was hit twice until I took off my tactical vest (this was after about 2 hours after the contact) and saw the damage. It was only then that we took a close look at my body armor that we realized I was hit twice by an AK-47. I had another ricochet hit around the top end of my back that may have caused serious injury to my lower neck."



Pinnacle is doing damn near everything it can to get its armor on the troops. The second link is a test they did trying to impress the military.

http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpDefense&htmlCategoryID=30&htmlId=4800

"The target is a standard ballistic dummy used around the country to measure the impact of bullet strikes on the human body. The dummy is designed to replicate soft tissue damage inflicted by the trauma of high-speed projectiles smashing against body tissue after passing through body armor. If the dummy was a real person the victim would have survived 250 bullet strikes with little apparent physical damage. What would happen to the individual's sense of invulnerability was not evaluated."

[AuntiBush]

14. That just broke a lot of parents hearts.

And probably pissed them off, as well. Have read articles where parents pay for those armors for their sons and daughters heading over there.

Someone, stop this madness.

[nicknameless]

15. What armor is being worn by the regime's beloved contractors?

Un-effing-believable.

R'ed

[LynzM]

17. That's ridiculous

If the military is not going to be able/willing to outfit them with the best armor they can get, why should they be prevented from getting it themselves, if they can?!

[Us vs Them]

18. Have the "official" armor on hand as an option first

and simply suggest they choose the best option. These soldiers are smart enough to know which armor works and which doesn't. After all, they have first hand evidence, unfortunately.

[SeattleGirl]

19. WFT????????

Fucking asshats! The reason the soldiers are wearing PRIVATELY BOUGHT ARMOR is because the freaking military, courtesy of the freakin' Bush Administration, is not supplying them with what they need!

When will this insanity STOP?????? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Oilwellian]

20. Here is who profits from the armor

HOME CORPORATE PROFILE OPERATING COMPANIES INVESTOR RELATIONS NEWS ROOM CONTACT US
Company OverviewManagementDHB Armor GroupDHB Sports David Brooks, Chairman and CEO of DHB Industries, added, "DHB Industries' leading position in the protective soft body armor industry has never been more pronounced. In the past six months, DHB has received two significant contracts for body armor from the United States Military, $60 million and $77 million, each of which the Company believes was the largest single contract for body armor ever awarded by the U.S. Department of Defense at the time of award. To date, our Point Blank subsidiary, providing life-saving protection for our troops, has shipped more than 600,000 Interceptor Outer Tactical Vests to the US military."

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=75442&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=736455&highlight=

Look who joined DHB in 2004:

General (Ret.) Larry R. Ellis, age 59, joined the Board of Directors of DHB Industries Inc. in early December, 2004. General Ellis served in the United States Army for 35 distinguished years before retiring in July 2004 as a 4-star general. General Ellis has commanded units at every echelon of the Army, including the First Armored Division in Germany and while deployed as the Multinational Division (North) in Bosnia and Herzegovina. As the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, he oversaw multi-year, multi-billion dollar programs supporting United States Army budget strategic objectives, and executed annual operating budgets of more than $15 billion. Soon after the United States went to war in 2001, General Ellis assumed command of the U.S. Army Forces Command, the Army's largest command.

http://www.dhbt.com/management.asp

A freaking General is profiting off of unsafe armor for our troops. How scummy can you get? Better yet, Bush considered Ellis to replace General Franks after he retired. I wonder if he's an Ellis family member that's part of the Bush crime family.

[rman]

21. So that's why the army requires people not to wear any protection at all,

except maybe for a helmet.

Makes perfect sense, in an upside-down world.

[electropop]

22. OK, so they won't issue armor, and now they ban it.

Glad they're supporting our troops. This really does sink to a new low.