Author Topic: Army Bans Privately Bought Armor  (Read 1861 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ramblin' Dad

  • Nevada Dads do it with Kleenex and Lotion
  • Assistant Admin
  • Big Daddy Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 5513
  • Liked: 52
  • Submariners Do It Deeper
  • Children?: One (17yo) Son - Jeremy
  • First Name?: John
  • Location: Sparks, NV
  • Xbox Gamertag: SubVet688
Army Bans Privately Bought Armor
« on: March 31, 2006, 05:03:33 PM »
Army Bans Privately Bought Armor
Associated Press  |  March 31, 2006
WASHINGTON - Just six months after the Pentagon agreed to reimburse soldiers who bought their own protective gear, the Army has banned the use of any body armor that is not issued by the military.

In a new directive, effective immediately, the Army said it cannot guarantee the quality of commercially bought armor, and any soldier wearing it will have to turn it in and have it replaced with authorized gear.

Army officials told The Associated Press on Thursday 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."

Spoehr said he doesn't recall any similar bans on personal armor or devices. Such directives are most often issued when there are problems with aircraft or other large equipment.

Some veterans denounced the decision. Nathaniel R. Helms, editor of Defense Watch, the online magazine for the group Soldiers for the Truth, said he has already received a number of e-mails from soldiers complaining about the policy.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who wrote Legislation to have troops reimbursed for equipment purchases, said soldiers "haven't been getting what they need in terms of equipment and body armor. That's totally unacceptable, and why this directive by the Pentagon needs to be scrutinized in much greater detail."

But another veterans group backed the move.

"I don't think the Army is wrong by doing this, because the Army has to ensure some level of quality," said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "They don't want soldiers relying on equipment that is weak or substandard."

Rieckhoff said, the military is partially to blame for the problem because it took too long to get soldiers the armor they needed. "This is the monster they made," he said.

Early in the Iraq war, soldiers and their families were spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars on protective gear that they said the military was not providing. Body armor generally includes armor and ceramic plates that cover the front, back and sides of a soldier's torso.

Last October, after months of pressure from families and members of Congress, the military began a reimbursement program for soldiers who purchased their own protective equipment.

The Army ban covers all commercial armor. It refers specifically to Pinnacle's armor, saying, "In its current state of development, Dragon Skin's capabilities do not meet Army requirements."

The Marine Corps has not issued a similar directive, but Marines are "encouraged to wear Marine Corps-issued body armor since this armor has been tested to meet fleet standards," spokesman Bruce Scott said.

Military officials have acknowledged that some troops - often National Guard members or Reservists - went to war with lesser-quality protective gear than other soldiers were issued.

"We'll be upfront and recognize that at the start of the conflict there were some soldiers that didn't have the levels of protection that we wanted," Spoehr said. Now, he added, "we can categorically say that whatever you're going to buy isn't as good as what you're going to get" from the military.

In interviews Thursday, Army officials said aggressive marketing by body armor manufacturers was fueling public concerns that troops are not getting the protection they need.

Army Lt. Col. Scott Campbell said the Army has asked Pinnacle to provide 30 sets of the full Dragon Skin armor so it can be independently tested. He said Pinnacle has indicated it won't be able to provide that armor until May, and the company said that is still the plan.

Campbell said initial military tests on small sections of the Dragon Skin armor had disappointing results. He said Pinnacle has received $840,000 in research funding to develop improved armor.

Spoehr said he believes the directive will have little impact on soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan because it's likely that nearly all are wearing the military-issued body armor.


Good grief! Someone needs to desperately pull their head out of their ass! Either buy them the armor they need or at least help them do it on their own, by financially helping them and giving them a list of where to buy or not buy. I understand the thinking on armor not meeting military standards, BUT last time I checked commercial armor was better than NO armor! I smell government contract upheaval. Those that have the contracts don't want soldiers buying their own so they put pressure on the politicians to stop it (you can't tell me that pentagon officers and higher military leaders are not politicians). Besides it makes more sense to spend $500,000 dollars on a $5,000 dollar set (figures pulled out of my ass) of body armor, right?? Sorry, but this whole body armor thing has been bullshit since the beginning of the war. It should be standard issue, not special order.

Offline davidAZ

  • Does anyone need a Devil's Advocate? Anyone? *tap tap tap* Hello! Is this thing on?
  • Big Daddy Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1352
  • Liked: 0
    • Associated Content Articles
Re: Army Bans Privately Bought Armor
« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2006, 05:31:11 PM »
I agree- the easiest solution to this is to supply the army with better protection.  We need to send the message to our military that we are willing to protect them.

Meanwhile, I understand the thinking process behind buying it on your own- however this is not a solution for the military as a whole.  If some of the soldiers want to purchase extra protection, then some soldiers will want to wear Nike boots to run faster.  Before you know it, our army will have Home Depot and UnderArmor sponsers like a Nascar ralley.

And are you telling me that Senator's so and so son can purchase his own personal body armor while a kid out of Kansas who joined the military to escape poverty should be left without?

And furthermore, if the military reimburses a soldier's added protective gear at a retail rate, it'll cost the military 10x the expense rather than setting up the specs and production for an overhall.
PS3 Online ID: davidAZ
Games Playing Online: Madden 07, Resistance: Fall of Man, Fight Night Round 3

Offline davidAZ

  • Does anyone need a Devil's Advocate? Anyone? *tap tap tap* Hello! Is this thing on?
  • Big Daddy Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1352
  • Liked: 0
    • Associated Content Articles
Re: Army Bans Privately Bought Armor
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2006, 05:39:25 PM »
One other thing- how legitimate is the need to increase the body armour?

Of course, more is always better, unless the soldiers are feeling like they are carrying around a 300 lb safe.

But our military is fighting a very unpopular war.  Is this more about a peace of mind for the families at home?  Is this a way to say, if we're going to battle, if we have to do this, let's keep it as sanitary as possible?

How is the current armour in relation to the enemy?  To the enemy's firepower?  How is our armour in relation to our past military history?

I don't know.  I've never been in the military.  But let's remember that this is war, and bad things happen in it.
PS3 Online ID: davidAZ
Games Playing Online: Madden 07, Resistance: Fall of Man, Fight Night Round 3


Sitemap Multimedia Forum
Daddy's Deals DP Daily News Blogs
EBooks Donations Contact Us
Daddyplace Constitution