Pentagon study faults US body armor in Iraq deaths

G

Greed

Star
Registered
Pentagon study faults US body armor in Iraq deaths
By Will Dunham
Fri Jan 6, 11:19 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Better body armor could have prevented or limited about 80 percent of fatal torso wounds suffered by Marines killed in Iraq, a report by U.S. military medical experts obtained on Friday said.

The report, conducted for the Marine Corps by the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner and not released to the public, examined the cases of Marines fatally wounded from the start of the war in March 2003 through June 2005, and found weaknesses in the torso protective gear.

Bullets or shrapnel hit the Marines' shoulders, the sides of their torsos or other areas not fully covered by ceramic plates contained in the body armor in at least 74 of 93 fatal wounds examined in the study.

"Either a larger plate or superior protection around the plate would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," the study stated.

Critics in the U.S. Congress have accused the Pentagon of failing to provide the best possible body armor and armored vehicles for American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. But military officials have defended the protective gear provided for troops as well as the quality of vehicles.

The study involved Marines killed due to "a primary lethal injury of the torso," which made up near a quarter of the Marines killed in the time period involved in the study. More than 60 percent of these torso injuries were caused by small arms fire, with 38 percent due to blast injuries from explosions, the study stated.

The troops studied were among 401 Marines killed in action during the applicable time period. Researchers reviewed autopsy reports and photographic records for each injury, the study said.

'SAVING LIVES'

Army spokesman Paul Boyce said that U.S. forces have the best body armor in the world and it is "saving lives every day."

"The Army has made numerous improvements in the area of soldier-protection equipment to the outer tactical vests and to the small-arms protective inserts," said Army spokesman Paul Boyce.

"In response to the changing battlefield conditions and as new technologies emerge, the Army continues to develop improvements to soldier protection equipment to enhance survivability and mobility. We take operational security very seriously and will not discuss in public sensitive issues that may render any insight to the enemy about our capabilities, fielding plans, or tactics, techniques and procedures."

In November, the Army and Marine Corps they ordered the recall of 18,000 torso-protecting vests, some used by U.S. troops in Iraq, after determining that the body armor failed to meet ballistic specifications, but insisted troops were never put at risk. The Marines in May recalled about 5,000 other "outer tactical vests" because of questions about whether they offered adequate protection.

Christopher Kelly, spokesman for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, said the office that conducted the study performs full autopsies on all troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and that the evaluation of body armor "is one of many issues we address with these investigations."

"Information regarding the effectiveness of body armor has been shared with those who design and field personal protective gear," Kelly said.

More than 2,190 U.S. troops have been killed in the Iraq war and another 16,000 have been wounded in combat.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060107...YJZ.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
 
U.S. Soldiers Question Use of More Armor

U.S. Soldiers Question Use of More Armor
By RYAN LENZ, Associated Press Writer
33 minutes ago

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.

The unreleased study examined 93 fatal wounds to Marines from the start of the Iraq war in March 2003 through June 2005. It concluded 74 of them were bullet or shrapnel wounds to shoulders or torso areas unprotected by traditional ceramic armor plating.

Soldiers 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.

Second Lt. Josh Suthoff, 23, of Jefferson City, Mo., said he already sacrifices enough movement when he wears the equipment. More armor would only increase his chances of getting killed, he said.

"You can slap body armor on all you want, but it's not going to help anything. When it's your time, it's your time," said Suthoff, a platoon leader in the brigade's 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment. "I'd go out with less body armor if I could."

The study and their remarks highlight the difficulty faced by the Army and Marine Corps in providing the best level of body armor protection in a war against an insurgency whose tactics are constantly changing.

Both the Army and the Marines have weighed the expected payoff in additional safety from extra armor against the measurable loss of combat effectiveness from too much armor.

According to a summary of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's study obtained Friday evening by The Associated Press, the 93 Marines who died from a primary lethal injury of the torso were among 401 Marines who died from combat injuries in Iraq between the start of the war and June 2005.

A military advocacy group, Soldiers for Truth, posted an article about the study on its Web site this week. On Friday evening, The New York Times reported in its online edition that the study for the first time shows the cost in lives lost from inadequate armor.

Autopsy reports and photographic records were analyzed to help the military determine possible body armor redesign.

Of 39 fatal torso wounds in which the bullet or shrapnel entered the Marine's body outside of the ceramic armor plate protecting the chest and back, 31 were close to the plate's edge, according to the study, which was conducted last summer.

Some soldiers felt unhappy that ceramic plates to protect their sides and shoulders were available, but not offered, when they deployed for Iraq in September.

"If it's going to protect a soldier or save his life, they definitely should have been afforded the opportunity to wear it," said Staff Sgt. Shaun Benoit, 26, of Conneaut, Ohio. "I want to know where there was a break in communication."

Others questioned the effectiveness of additional body armor.

"It's the Army's responsibility to get soldiers the armor they need. But that doesn't mean those deaths could have been prevented," said Spc. Robert Reid, 21, of Atlanta.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who was in Iraq on Saturday, said military leaders told him that body armor has improved since the initial invasion in 2003 and that the military hoped to gradually transition to the improved armor.

The debate between protection versus mobility has dominated military doctrine since the Middle Ages, when knights wrapped themselves in metal suits for battle, said Capt. Jamey Turner, 35, of Baton Rouge, La., a commander in the 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment.

The issue comes up daily on the battlefield in Iraq, and soldiers need to realize there is no such thing as 100 percent protection, he said.

"You've got to sacrifice some protection for mobility," he added. "If you cover your entire body in ceramic plates, you're just not going to be able to move."

Others in the regiment said the issue of protecting soldiers with more body armor is of greater concern at home than among soldiers in Iraq, who have seen firsthand how life and death hang on a sliver of luck when an improvised explosive device hits a Humvee.

"These guys over here are husbands, sons and daughters. It's understandable people at home would want all the protection in the world for us. But realistically, it just don't work," said Sgt. Paul Hare, 40, of Tucumcari, N.M.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060107...UhI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
 
Some Marines Declining Extra Body Armor

Some Marines Declining Extra Body Armor
By ANTONIO CASTANEDA, Associated Press Writer
9 minutes ago

Extra body armor — the lack of which caused a political storm in the United States — has flooded in to Iraq, but many Marines here promptly stuck it in lockers or under bunks. Too heavy and cumbersome, many say.

Marines already carry loads as heavy as 70 pounds when they patrol the dangerous streets in towns and villages in restive Anbar province. The new armor plates, while only about five pounds each, are not worth carrying for the additional safety they are said to provide, some say.

"We have to climb over walls and go through windows," said Sgt. Justin Shank of Greencastle, Pa. "I understand the more armor, the safer you are. But it makes you slower. People don't understand that this is combat and people are going to die."

Staff Sgt. Thomas Bain of Buffalo, N.Y., shared concerns about the extra pounds.

"Before you know it, they're going to get us injured because we're hauling too much weight and don't have enough mobility to maneuver in a fight from house to house," said Bain, who is assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment. "I think we're starting to go overboard on the armor."

Since the insurgency erupted in Iraq, the Pentagon has been criticized for supplying insufficient armor for Humvees and too few bulletproof vests. In one remarkable incident, soldiers publicly confronted Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld about the problem on live television.

Hometown groups across the United States have since raised money to send extra armor to troops, and the Pentagon, under congressional pressure, launched a program last October to reimburse troops who had purchased armor with their own money.

Soldiers and their parents spent hundreds, sometimes thousand of dollars, on armor until the Pentagon began issuing the new protective gear.

In Bain's platoon of about 35 men, Marines said only three or four wore the plates after commanders distributed them last month and told them that use was optional.

Top military officials, including Secretary of the Army Francis Harvey, acknowledge the concerns over weight and mobility but have urged that the new gear be mandatory.

"That's going to add weight, of course," said Harvey. "You've read where certain soldiers aren't happy about that. But we think it's in their best interest to do this."

Marines have shown a special aversion to the new plates because they tend to patrol on foot, sometimes conducting two patrols each day that last several hours. They feel the extra weight.

In Euphrates River cities from Ramadi and Romanna, lance corporals to captains have complained about the added weight and lack of mobility. But some commanders have refused to listen. In the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, for example, commanders require use of the plates. End of story.

The Marine Corps has said a total of 28,000 sets of the plates, officially called small-arms protective inserts, or side SAPIs, will be in combat zones by April. The Army has said it is hoping to have 230,000 sets of plates in the field this year.

Last year, a study by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner said dozens of Marines killed by wounds to the torso might have survived had the larger plates been in use.

"I'm sure people who ... lost kidneys would have loved to have had them on," said 2nd Lt. William Oren, a native of Southlake, Texas, who wears the plates. "More armor isn't the answer to all our problems. But I'll recommend them because it's more protection."

Some Marines have chosen to wear the plates, particularly those in more vulnerable jobs such as Humvees turret gunners or those who frequently travel on roads plagued by roadside bombs.

But many Marines — particularly those who conduct foot patrols also carrying weapons, extra ammunition, medical equipment, night vision goggles, food and water — say the extra armor is not worth it, especially when the weather becomes unbearably hot.

"When you already have 60, 70 pounds on and you add 10 pounds when you go patrolling through the city or chasing after bad guys, that extra 10 pounds is going to make a difference. You're going to feel it," said Lance Cpl. David Partridge from Bangor, Maine.

Many Marines, however, believe the politics of the issue eventually will make the plates mandatory.

"The reason they issued (the plates), I think, is to make people back home feel better," said Lance Cpl. Philip Tootle of Reidsville, Ga. "I'm not wishing they wouldn't have issued them. I'm just wishing that they wouldn't make them mandatory."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060326...kRI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
 
Re: Some Marines Declining Extra Body Armor

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...mar31,1,7395566.story?coll=la-headlines-world
From the Los Angeles Times
Army Bans the Use of Privately Purchased Body Armor
Many soldiers in Iraq bought protective gear they said the military wasn't providing. But the top brass says it may be inadequate.
From the Associated Press

March 31, 2006

WASHINGTON — Soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear body armor that was not issued by the military, Army officials said Thursday.

The order was prompted by concern that soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested armor from private companies, including the Dragon Skin gear made by Fresno-based Pinnacle Armor Inc., the Army officials said.

"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 of Pinnacle, said he hadn't seen the directive.

"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."

Nathaniel R. Helms, editor of the Soldiers for the Truth online magazine DefenseWatch, said he already had received a number of e-mails from soldiers complaining about the policy.

"Outrageously we've seen that [soldiers] haven't been getting what they need in terms of equipment and body armor," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who wrote legislation to provide reimbursement to troops for equipment purchases. "That's totally unacceptable, and why this directive by the Pentagon needs to be scrutinized in much greater detail."

Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said, "I don't think the Army is wrong by doing this, because the Army has to ensure some level of quality."

But, 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.

In January, an unreleased Pentagon study found that side armor could have saved dozens of U.S. lives in Iraq, prompting the Army and Marine Corps to order ceramic body armor plates to be shipped to troops this year.

The Army ban covers all commercial armor. It refers specifically to Pinnacle's armor.

"In its current state of development, Dragon Skin's capabilities do not meet Army requirements," the Army order says, and it "has not been certified to protect against several small-arms threats that the military is encountering in Iraq and Afghanistan."

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 Guardsmen or reservists — went to war with lesser-quality protective gear than other soldiers.

But now, Spoehr said, "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.
 
So it has been proposed to weigh the troops down with more armor, and make them slower thus more prone to become a casualty?
 
<font size="4">
The following was posted by GET YOU HOT in a new
thread but was moved to this thread on the same
subject for continuity of discussion and debate.
__________________________________________
</font size>


Wounded Soldier Forced to Pay for Vest
Soldier Says He Was Charged for Armor

A former U.S. soldier injured in Iraq says he was forced to pay $700 for a blood-soaked Kevlar vest that was destroyed after medics removed it to treat shrapnel wounds to his right arm.

First Lt. William “Eddie” Rebrook IV, 25, of Charleston had to leave the Army because of his injuries. But before he could be discharged last week, he had to scrounge up cash from his buddies to pay for the body armor or face not being discharged for months—all because a supply officer failed to document that the vest had been destroyed more than a year ago as a biohazard.

“I last saw the (body armor) when it was pulled off my bleeding body while I was being evacuated in a helicopter,” Rebrook told The Charleston Gazette for Tuesday’s edition. “They took it off me and burned it.”

Upon outprocessing, due to being medically discharged, Rebrook was told to produce his Outer Tactical Vest. He did not have it so he was footed with a $700 bill. His buddies helped him scrape up the cash required so that he could leave promptly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top