January 7, 2006
IF WE KEPT THEM ALL IN OLD NUKE SILOS THEY'D BE IMPERVIOUS TO ATTACK:
U.S. Soldiers Question Use of More Armor (RYAN LENZ , 01.07.2006, AP)
U.S. soldiers in the field were not all supportive of a Pentagon study that found improved body armor saves lives, with some troops arguing Saturday that more armor would hinder combat effectiveness. [...]Posted by Orrin Judd at January 7, 2006 7:36 PMSoldiers from the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade "Rakkasans" are required to wear an array of protective clothing they refer to as their "happy gear," ranging from Kevlar drapes over their shoulders and sides, to knee pads and fire-resistant uniforms.
But many soldiers say they feel encumbered by the weight and restricted by fabric that does not move as they do. They frequently joke as they strap on their equipment before a patrol, and express relief when they return and peel it off.
It's a crock. Further, deaths caused by rifle and pistol fire are a minor portion of the combat deaths, most of which stem from IEDs and suicide bombs. See page 5 of this pdf.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 7, 2006 10:16 PMArmor was first issued in Korea toward the end of 1951 and initially some of the troops declined it as being cumbersome. When I first arrived there in the winter of 1951 I hated wearing a helmet because we had to wear a pile lined hat under it for warmth and the combination was just more weight to carry. I hated it; that is until the first time I came under fire by a machine gun. Wouldn't be without it afterward, even if I had the choice.
The 101st airborne didn't wear helmets as a unit and as a badge of courage. When we passed through them they called us, Marines, wusses because we had to. We had more than one helmet kept as souvenirs in our company where the helmet was penetrated by a slug that slipped around between the liner and the shell to exit out the back.
Would I want to wear armor if over there now in their circumstances ... you bet.
Posted by: Genecis at January 8, 2006 10:34 AM