(no subject)
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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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. :(
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
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*
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.
Re: *sigh*
Re: *sigh*
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)