Armoured suits are 'too goofy' say US troops

[ECH1969]

American troops have complained that a new armoured body suit designed to be worn in Iraq makes them look "goofy".

Capt Larry Bergeron told the military newspaper Stars and Stripes that the armour was credited with saving the lives of three men sprayed with shrapnel from roadside bombs.

But Specialist Michael Floyd, 19, said: "I am not a big fan of this thing. It is really hot and hard to move around in. I do feel safer, but only in an explosion. I would not feel safer in a rollover or in small-arms fire."

Critics say the heavy suits also restrict movement during combat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/09/wus09.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/09/ixnewsnew.html

[Jamison]

1. Not just goofy

But I bet that thing will be hotter than hell in Iraq.

[benddem]

11. my thoughts exactly

when it hits 120 the sweat will be pooling around their knees.

[saigon68]

33. Try to swim after your truck enters the water

Just tie an anchor to your leg.

I'll bet it won't stop an rpg.

The resistance can figure that out if I can

Ass-Clowns (Cheney is making a killing from this idea too)

[dysfunctional press]

48. it's water-cooled. that's a big part of the bulk.

nt

[ContraBass Black]

62. So, they solved the heat problem by multiplying the weight problem.

Until the cooler breaks down and becomes both problems.

[wordpix2]

51. my first thoughts

[tuvor]

2. I wonder who manufactures them.

[arikara]

27. No doubt either a subsidiary of Halliburton

or a company that Rummy has shares in.

[arikara]

28. deleted. Weird dupe

:argh:

[rzemanfl]

3. Anybody remember the scene in "To Hell and Back" where

a tank driver was complaining about the thin armor on his tank and Audie Murphy said "how thick do you think this field jacket is?"

This armor stuff is crazy. If we'd had enough troops in Iraq to secure the explosives it wouldn't be needed. If we had stayed the hell out it wouldn't be needed either. This stuff looks like a recipe for heat prostration and kidney stones.

[Up2Late]

24. Did you read about the kidney stones, or were you just guessing?

Here ya go!

Published May 07, 2006

Kidney stones become soldiers’ silent enemy

BY SCOTT GUTIERREZ

THE OLYMPIAN

BALAD AIR BASE, IRAQ – Army Sgt. John Jimison first felt the pain in his side while driving a military truck on a mission. He felt it for the second time the next day, only this time it hurt much worse.

“When I stepped down, I had leg pain and one side just went numb,” said Jimison, 28, a soldier with 1st Battalion, 101 Aviation. out of Fort Campbell, Ky.

Jimison soon discovered that he’d become a casualty of an increasing medical problem in Iraq, one that has nothing to do with insurgents or improvised explosive devices. Large numbers of soldiers are developing kidney stones, more so than in prior conflicts, and the U.S. military is trying to determine why.

The problem has become so prevalent that the Air Force Theater Hospital at Balad, the major trauma center for soldiers wounded in Iraq, was equipped in January with a $120,000 surgical laser and 24-hour urine test kits that measure minerals and chemicals in the body.

(more at link)

<http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060507/NEWS/60507002>

[rzemanfl]

46. Just seemed obvious to me. Kidney stones are no fun. n/t

[teknomanzer]

49. Just read this and make an educated guess...

link follows:

http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/Kidney_stones.html

My guess would be problems with the water supply, excessive heat and dehydration, and eating too many Meals Ready to Eat over an extended period of time.

[MadMaddie]

4. This is the best that the military can do?

This must be another no bid contract...to a contractor who has never designed armored ware.....it's criminal!

[lumpy]

16. Fine example of the follies of war.

This really harkens back to medieval times, chain mail and clanking armour. Good God, this would be funny if it weren't serious.

[hexola]

5. Send in the Michelin Man!

[sofa king]

32. Or Robby!

[B3Nut]

40. You'd think he'd get tired

really fast. :D

Sorry...couldn't resist...

Todd in Beerbratistan

[Media_Lies_Daily]

6. I wonder how many millions were sunk into this project.

[DS1]

7. Why is that an issue?

Next to the billions sunk into fighter jets we don't need, and tanks we can't use, why are you complaining when FINALLY the troops get thrown a bone?

fucking hell :banghead:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

29. The troops "Get thrown a bone"??? WTF are you talking about?....

...It's more like they're getting thrown an ANCHOR with those idiotic suits! They look like the old Navy diving suits, and are probably almost as heavy! Did you bother to READ the article at all? The suits have extremely low mobility, are very hot, and are very cumbersome.

Do you support these pieces of crap? Do you want to see more of our troops die because of these things??

Maybe you ought to beat your head against a wall...you might just jar some common sense into a usable configuration.

[DS1]

36. The first issue of everything military sucks

One would figure that you being the expert in the matter would know this. They'll get better, but more importantly it's SOMETHING

[bennywhale]

38. It'll all be alright when robots are on the battlefield

instead, just like the unmanned drones.

They can then go around the world killing with impunity for resources with no risk of backlash at home. unless there are some very emotional robot lovers.

[karlrschneider]

8. Goofy worse than dead?

I don't get the complaints...
:eyes:

[davepc]

25. Heat stroke is just as lethal as bullets.

and if you cant move or take cover quickly and easily you're a sitting duck.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

9. they designed a suit to be worn in Iraq.

why not just design a way out? oh, forget it.

[Teaser]

10. Yes, Lord *snicker* Vader...

nt

[triakis36]

12. Those are seriously hideous

:rofl:

[951-Riverside]

13. "Fuck it I'd rather lose a leg than wear some goofy looking suit"

Durrrrrrrr.... *drools*

I take it these guys havent seen the real horrors of combat, maybe seeing their comrades with their limbs blown off or head split open by sniper fire will change their attitude.

[ECH1969]

14. You would be suprised how many troops

would rather take the chance of getting hit then wear something like that. Alot of soldiers take out alot of their body armor because it restricts movement too much.

[Psephos]

17. The civilian equivalent is not using a seatbelt

Lots of those types out there, too.

Peace

[Media_Lies_Daily]

30. On the other hand, there is some truth to the comment,....

..."There's the quick, and the dead".

American troops forced to fight in those suits might as well be the French knights at Agincourt...once they were down, they couldn't get back up. It was then just a simple matter of the English troops forcing a blade, spike, or arrow into gaps in the French armor.

Is that what you want to see happen to our troops in combat?

[ekelmore]

56. Who said that?

Hey guy, did you read past the subject line? It has nothing to do with looking unfashionable, it has to do with awkward movement. Yeah, I'm sure they adore it in the event they step on a mine, but when you've got 9 insurgents with semi-automatics charging from a building or stopped vehicle, what do you do? Fumble with the safety, or maybe running and nimbly hopping into the hummer is the better option? Come on, they can't use that in urban warfare, and I'm sure the last thing they would like to hear is how you don't think they've seen their best friend's head blown off. Despite the security the suit provides, it is restricting as well and has the potential to induce heat stroke. That is the issue, not whether or not it allows them to look dashing while avoiding exploding debris.

[Oversea Visitor]

15. To be used in Iraq?

Does it comes with inbuilt air-con?

This is stupid..... but hey big money good for contractor of suit.
US :crazy: nuts.

[GoldenOldie]

19. Wonder how it works in 125% temps?

[dionysus]

20. since you didn't read the article

The water-cooled "alien spacesuits" are being handed out to turret gunners in their notoriously vulnerable Humvee vehicles.

The protective suit, based on those worn by bomb disposal officers, was intended to cut spiralling casualties for one of the most dangerous jobs in modern warfare.

But some troops have complained that the armour and headgear is inelegant. Others say the water-cooling system, designed for the soaring temperatures of an Iraqi summer, regularly breaks down.

Nonetheless, the suits being tested in combat by US military police units in northern Iraq have produced good results.


<snip>

[Media_Lies_Daily]

31. Really? How many minutes can they stay in those suits? What if....

...they're on patrol and the cooling system breaks down far from their home base? What happens if the vehicle is destroyed...how quickly can the soldier get out of the vehicle? Will the sokier have to wear that thing all the way back to the patrol's base?

"Good results"? Under what conditions?

[dionysus]

65. I was just saying at least this is a try

someone thought that up as a way to save lives.

[The_Casual_Observer]

18. Death star storm troopers?

[Up2Late]

21. Those aren't Body Armor! Those are BOMB SQUAD Explosion Protection...

Suits!

They've turned to BOMB SQUAD Explosion Protection Suits! :wtf:

WOW! Things MUST be going GREAT over there! Making GOOD Progress!!! :sarcasm: :banghead: :eyes:

[saigon68]

35. To protect from the force of THROWN FLOWER PETALS

[formercia]

42. My thought too...

and the medics will love cutting someone out of one.........:sarcasm:

[NorthernSpy]

22. they designed the pants with the ass in the front!

And can you even imagine wearing that thing in 100+ degree heat?

:think:

[0007]

23. Rummy and dickie like these suit the best and they cost less.

[Up2Late]

26. That picture reminded me of this one...

<http://www.huumor.com/funny_pictures/People/Bomb_squad_practical_joke>

Larger version at link below.
<http://www.thehumorarchives.com/attachment.do?attachmentId=330&ts=1147154363367&s=21DA0994599BD0AA5DD12DFACC5B66455C2C25E0>

[Endangered Specie]

34. THey should just go ahead and give them the Mondochiwan suits

from the 5th element movie...





Probably just as effective, not as goofy, more scary looking.
:shrug:

[LeftHander]

37. Rather look goofy than be dead....nt

[Ilsa]

39. Anybody have a recipe for baked troop?

Season with pepper, the salt will emerge from the skin. Wrap in parchment paper, slide into the goofy oven suit, and go to Iraq in July.

I bet there are a number of deaths from dehydration with this thing.

[Javaman]

41. Here is the suit in action...

[Chrisduhfur]

47. hah!

ha!

[WePurrsevere]

43. Restrict movement? I'll bet. They remind me a bit of little kids bundled

up good in snowsuits a la Randy in "A Christmas Story". They'd be great for being moved about in, like in a Hummer, etc, but I would think they'd be horrible in hand to hand or trying to get away from a mob, a buring vehicle, etc.

Are they using the new improved material (if it's even available yet) or the old heavier Kevlar stuff. A while back... on PBS maybe?... DH and I watched a show where they talked about this new bullet proof material that is supposed to be a LOT better protection and lighter weight then the older heavier stuff. I can't remember who developed it... thought it was the same dude that invented Kevlar but might not be... on Googling I found a few places working on lightweight bullet-proof material a few years ago... like this: http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/news/2003-04/mar/09.shtml not sure if it's the same.. they showed this stuff being tested on the show. ::sigh:: I wish I could remember more.

[NYC]

50. Stephanie Kwolek invented Kevlar.

Kevlar Inventor Joins Women's Hall of Fame

Chemical Week, October 8, 2003 — Retired DuPont scientist Stephanie Kwolek, whose research led to the discovery of Kevlar aramid fiber, was inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame in Seneca Falls, NY, on October 4. Kwolek joined DuPont in 1946 as laboratory chemist in Buffalo, NY and spent 40 years with the company, mostly at its experimental station at Wilmington, DE. DuPont says nearly 3,000 law enforcement officers have survived potentially fatal or disabling injuries because they were wearing body armor made from aramid fiber. All U.S. combat soldiers have worn Kevlar helmets since the 1991 Gulf War, it says.

http://www.fibersource.com/f-info/More_News/DuPont-102103.htm

A few years ago, someone told me spider webs were being studied for armor use.

[WePurrsevere]

53. Thanks! I'm sorry I muddled it. There was a guy on the show talking about

Kevlar and other materials.. for some reason I thought he was the Kevlar inventor. Thanks for letting me know it was a female. B-)

Yes, I had heard spider webs are being developed for use... The Future Of Bulletproof vests, etc. Hopefully it works out and soon.

(I still wish I could remember what the show had talked about that had been already and was lighter in weight.)

[The2ndWheel]

44. Soldiers of the future won't have to worry

http://web.mit.edu/isn/

[stanwyck]

45. I hate to admit this

but my son told me he doesn't "always" (probably means never) wear his issued body armor because "it's uncomfortable and restricts his movement". And that's not nearly as complete as this.
Plus, it's hot.
Apparently, he'd rather endanger his life even more than be uncomfortable.
Sigh.
And when he got back from his second tour, he bought a motorcycle.
I can't get through to him and I'm his mom.
Hoping his CO has better luck.

[Kailassa]

52. From another mother of sons,

I hope he comes back healthy,
and comes back soon.

:grouphug: It's a group hug because I know I'll only be one of many here who feel for you.

[stanwyck]

57. DUers are the most supportive

people there are. Thanks for your thoughts.
My son is in the U.S. now. He's had two tours in Iraq - one more to go.
Again, thanks for your thoughtfulness.

[Xithras]

59. My brother in law doesn't wear his either.

He's in Iraq right now, and my sister was pretty upset when she found out too.

The problem is, the armor may help you survive getting shot, but it makes it more likely that you WILL get shot in the first place. When you're running for cover, the last thing you want is a bunch of metal plates slowing you down. When you're trying to get out of the line of fire, the last thing you want is a heavy vest making you six inches thicker. When you're trying to escape a vehicle that's being shot up or which is on fire, the last thing you want is a bunch of extra bulk that makes escaping the vehicle harder.

He also told me that armor tends to make guys stupid. Soldiers wearing armor are more likely to run into dangerous situations because they're sure their armor will protect them. The problem is, the armor doesn't do jack against a direct IED blast, it won't stop heavy ammo (like the 50 cal machine guns that some of the Iraqi's use), and it doesn't protect vital areas like the femoral artery or the head.

He wears two plates to protect his heart from square shots. That's it.

[stanwyck]

60. I hadn't considered

the false sense of protection...kinda like all those photographers who were killed in Viet Nam because they thought their cameras were some kind of protection.
I didn't mention another major reason my son doesn't wear his armor consistently...because it's a difficult one for a mother. He's a sniper. And the armor interferes with his aim.

[Phoonzang]

54. Well it's not like that in all the sci-fi books...

I guess we've spent all our money on useless shit like the B-2 so we can't develop proper full-body armor. That being said, if I was in Iraq and someone gave me the choice to wear that or nothing I'd wear it, goofy or not.

[happyslug]

55. This will be dropped for the same reason Knights dropped their Armor.

In Medieval days, you had the armored Knight. With the invention of tempered Steel these became strong enough to even stop Arrows at short distances. The problem with this plate armor was its weight AND lack of protection.

As to weight, the armor being all over your body was manageable even if it weighed 80 pounds. The problem was at that weight, it slowed you down. You did not notice this in a Calvary Charge (Which lasted only minutes) but if the battle was NOT decided in the first Five Minutes the Knight would be so exhausted that minimally armored soldiers would win the day. There was the further problem of the effect of weight during a March, armored knights would NOT wear their Armor during the March (To save themselves and their horses) but only put it on when battle was expected (Unlike the earlier Chain mail and later Brest-plates that provided protection but at much lighter weight). Thus such completed armored knights were restricted to Calvary or Castle defense (as opposed to line infantry). Even in the Calvary, the Knight would have to have Several horses reserved for his use for carrying the Knight with full armor was rough on the horse (and why when Calvary dropped its armor after about 1700, Cavalrymen were noted for being smaller and lighter than infantrymen, light weight put less strain on the horse). Notice the weight did NOT affect the Knights ability to fight over a short time period, but if the Battle (or preparations for the Battle) lasted more than Five minutes the effectiveness of the Knight declined rapidly. In fact the completely Armored Knights only appears twice in European History, during the period of the late Roman Empire and right after the Black Death in Europe. During both time periods the main military problem was putting down peasants revolts NOT fighting trained Soldiers. Peasants being untrained in combat always went for the knight not his horse (The horse was a useful animal to them and the Peasant viewed the Horse as a "friend" not a "foe"). Armored Knights against such untrained Peasants could scatter them by a quick Calvary Charge and the full suit of armor would protect the knight from any weapons of the Peasant. Against Trained soldiers (or evenly minimally trained soldiers, thus during the above two time periods most soldiers were foreign mercenaries least the peasants get some military training on how to defeat a Knight)) this was NOT sustainable, the Soldiers knew the best way to kill the Fully Armored Knight was to kill his horse first. Once he was de-horsed, his armor will eventually do him in no matter how well he fought (Thus after the above two period when the main enemy again became soldiers not untrained peasants, full Armor was dropped).

The Second problem with Full Armor is the lack of protection. As you can see I hinted at this problem in the previous paragraph, the Knight's horse was generally unarmored for the horse could NOT carry both the weight of the Knight, the Knight's Armor and the armor for the horse. Something had to give and generally it was the Armor for the Horse, which made it easier for Infantrymen to kill the horse and then the Knight. The solution was to return to Breastplates, helmets and smaller Cavalrymen (Who tended to be peasants for they is a collation between height and food intake of one's parents and grand mothers).

A third Factor in the use of armor was the price, Chain mail was expensive but within range of most people who had good income (i.e. even wealthy peasants could buy it since it lasted a lifetime as we can see in the days of the Roman Republic where the richer Peasants purchased their own armor till such rich peasants lost their lands in the Second Century BC and became landless peasants). Tempered Steel cost even MORE, thus only the richer knights could afford it (Through a thin Tempered Steel Breast-Plate and Helmets was within range of most land owning peasants, through it would be like taking a 20 year mortgage on your home for the protection). Thus price of such protection became to high and had to be dropped.

Notice I Did not mention Firearms in the above discussion, while Firearms were a factor, the tendency AWAY from armor during the Reformation preceded the widespread adoption of Firearms. The main push was the need for more troops trained and armed to fight other Soldiers NOT Untrained Peasants (And firearms was NOT a factor in the decline in Armor right after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, but had more to do with the Europe being a group of independent Countries fighting each other as opposed to an Elite keeping their peasants down.

The same with this suit, it is heavy (To be used ONLY by the Gunner and then he i NOT to leave his gun mount area thus if the Humvee is destroyed he is dead) It is expensive (To high for ALL soldiers) and it lack protection to the HUMVEE. The same three factor that killed the Armor Knight (

[ContraBass Black]

61. They're killing the horses by armoring them now.

The Hummers that are armored are carrying more armor than their original cargo capacity, on top of soldiers and equipment, and break down regularly because of it. On the other hand, you have the unarmored horses, the Humvees that little children throwing rocks penetrate.

[happyslug]

63. That is why some Generals want to replace them with M113s

M113s are Armored Personnel Carriers from the Vietnam era (the M113 was adopted around 1959 and fully fielded by the time of Vietnam). The M113 can carried a Squad of Soldiers (i.e. up to 12 Men) with sufficient armor to stop all buy RPG rounds (i.e. it is prof against 7.62 i.e. 30 caliber, and 12.7 mm i.e. .50 caliber Rounds). Most of the Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) would have a tough time against a M113 (through the larger IEDs will still do damage). Unlike the M113, the upgraded HUMVEE is NOT capable of withstanding a 12.7 (.50 caliber) round (or the explosive equivalent in an IED).

The M113 is still in storage in the US, some are being upgraded with hybrid engines To improve fuel economy). It is available and has been available since the start of the invasion of Iraq, when why have they NOT been sent? (At least One national Guard Unit took a M113 with them to Iraq and used it and was attacked by the Army for bringing it, no one likes a good example).

Why was the M113 NOT sent? The reason are numerous but based on how much fuel the Army wants to use. The Humvee gets about 10 miles to the Gallon Simple it uses more fuel than the up-armored HUMVEE, The tracks on a M113 last about 2000 miles (unlike the 20,000 miles the tires on the HUMVEE lasts). The up-armored HUMVEE can still be recovered by a five ton Wrecker, the M113 would have to have a M88 tank recovery Vehicle, 2 ten ton wreckers, or a 20 ton wrecker (Only the M88 is truly "Standard", through the Army does have Wreckers based on the M113 and has 20 ton wreckers). The M113 gets about 2 mpg, while the up-armored HUMVEE get about 10 mpg (Both vehicles are Diesels so gets better fuel economy than a gasoline engine). Thus the M113 uses over twice the fuel of the UP-Armored HUMVEE, with the M113s needs for heavier (and more fuel thirsty) support elements (The larger Wreckers AND increase need to replace the M113 tracks over the HUMVEE's tires) a unit using M113s probably uses 2-3 times the fuel of the same unit using Up-armored HUMVEES. Something tells me the supply chain is NOT capable of supply this level of Fuel and thus the push for other solutions (Such as this piece of body armor) to address the increase inability of the up-armored HUMVEES to protect their crews from IEDs.

One last comment, the last time I read of such heavy armor on crewmen was on B-17s during WWII (and then only by the open door gunners). The reason was it was not only cheaper to armor just the crewmen than the plane but by up-armoring the Crew you used less armor and thus carried less weight on the plane (In the B-29 the Air Force went to remotely controlled turrets and dropped the waist gunners and their flak jackets. The crew were put in the middle of the plane with increased armor around them. This use of remotely controlled turrets required only a small area of the plane to be armored to protect the Crew, this area was further Struck in the B-36 and struck once again with the B-52 which had only a tail gun and it was remotely controlled on later models).

My point is how short of fuel is our Army in Iraq that it can NOT dropped the up-armored HUMVEES and replaced them with M113? Something is NOT right it can be a transportation shortage that restrict Fuel usage, it could be Rumsfield's refusal to admit he made a mistake (It may be that Rumsfield does NOT want the M113 to outshine the Stryker Vehicle, which some armor people opposed for the Stryker is a wheel based combat vehicles and thus does not go as while cross country as a track vehicle like the M113), it may be a combination of these, I do not know, but it is leading to the loss of American lives and Congress is not even investigating it.

[Seabiscuit]

58. Ready for a walk on the moon???

[name not needed]

64. He looks like a giant, fat bumblebee.

[Bruden]

66. I guess it puts a crimp in their style when they wanna pickup Arab babes.