(no subject)

[razorjak]

Isn't this nifty?

Soldiers are being threatened with disciplinary action AND the loss of their death benefits if they don't leave their superior, privately purchased body armour behind when deploying overseas.

Last I heard, a fair number of soldiers weren't even being ISSUED body armour. Now Big Brass is threatening them if they try to use gear they (or their families) have purchased themselves.

Discuss.

Comments

[siani-hedgehog.livejournal.com]

well, the gear is non-standard, and the army has decided what it considers the best option. and they pay out based on the idea that soldiers are all working under the conditions they are ordered to. so if someone was killed while wearing the non-standard gear, i can see why they wouldn't pay out, because they gear might be responsible, by offering less of a certain type of protection or mobility. and if they didn't issue the warning forbidding the gear, it'd be possible to argue that it was allowed.

there's also the fact that i would expect that if the gear is better, it'd cause some grief between men if the wealthier ones had better protection. seems a real minefield.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

Looking at the article, it appears to be directed specifically at the Dragon Skin body armor. It has a lot of promise, but appears to be that it's got currently Level III protection and a PENDING Level IV protection. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the interceptor body armor is a level IV spec and that would at least on paper make the folks bitching about the body armor through policy making.

Still, looking at that one review of the armor, they seem to be working up towards a flexible 14.5mm protection level for retrofit to vehicles. Hell of a lot better than the kevlar sheets added to HMMWVs in the 80s.

As I said to you on AIM, at first glance it looks like risk aversion in the pentagon based on a paper issue with the certification of the armor in question. It could also be the configuration, apparently the Dragon Skin system allows configuration of Level III and Level IV layers as the user chooses. It could also be that the bean counters in the procurement system are pissed at pinnacle for side stepping them and going straight to the troops. Frankly, I'll hang this on the folks that have gummed up the procurement system to "prevent" government waste when all it does is increase costs and add delays.

[serpent-sky.livejournal.com]

Looking at the two comments below, I see their points as well.

But I think the real issue at hand is: why did these soldiers and their families feel a need to buy their own body armor to begin with? Because that's clearly the root of the problem. Is body armor being supplied? Was it a mis-representation, in the media, that is wasn't? Somehow, I doubt it, because I think the soldiers would know if they were issued body armor or not and act accordingly. And if they're not being issued armor, then as a taxpayer, I am outraged.

But then again, I am outraged about a lot of things -- and there's really not much the average person who's ended up pretty fucked up in this economy/these times can do. Unfortunately. :(

[jruske.livejournal.com]

*fark*

We all know that *non-standard* gear is and always has been a point of contention. But to deny someone gear they bought which is used when other gear is (a) not available or (b) of lower quality is just stupid.

Just further proof that the Army is yet again doing the wrong things in a mad attempt to centralize and standardize rather than focus on what is necessary to win. *woot* Hello bureaucracy.

[ex-tech-prie207.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a vet who has seen action and used both the Interceptor vest and a commercial vest, I can understand why some soldiers would be prompted to use non issue equipment as to be perfectly honest, a lot of the standard issue equipment is subpar.

Normal unit troops unfortunately get hammered on when it's found that they are using civillian equipment...troops in special units tend to get a bit more leeway.

If it was me, I'd take the risk as military issue is generally substandard.

[mspaintchuk.livejournal.com]

I remember when the guys at SA (myself included) got a fund going to buy the soldiers the armor inserts because most of them were not being issued them. We raised a good amount of cash and got alot of guys the armor they needed. As long as they let them keep that I won't have to go shoot anyone.

[ashesnfeathers.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with the policy.

But it sounds more like a liability issue that the Defence Department is worried about. Sounds like they'd rather pay our benefits to a soldier killed in their "endorsed" armour then other.

*sigh*

[raindrops.livejournal.com]

Now, I understand the issues coming from the top down, and don't even wish to comment on SOP and procurement and who really makes the decisions that affect soldiers' lives... but

If I had been restricted to the standard issue kit, I'd most likely be dead, along with a bunch of my mates. We used what we were comfortable with using, even if it didn't come from Supply. Looking down from the ivory towers, it's all well and good to say that soldiers and their gear should be interchangable and uniform, but looking up from the mud at someone who is dead-set on killing you, it's reassuring to know that you geared up that day with everything that YOU know you need to survive, not just what you've been told to use.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

So far the guys on TankNet are calling this an over-hyping of some isolated issue/incident.