You go to war with the army you have...

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



PVS
"You go to war with the army you have not the army you might want or wish to have" D. Rumsfeld

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/politics/06cnd-armor.html?ei=5088&en=b13c10bd70ee9190&ex=1294203600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

January 6, 2006
Extra Armor Could Have Saved Many Lives, Study Shows

By MICHAEL MOSS
A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

The ceramic plates in vests currently worn by the majority of military personnel in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back. In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.

Thirty-one of the deadly wounds struck the chest or back so close to the plates that simply enlarging the existing shields "would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," according to the study, which was obtained by The New York Times.

For the first time, the study by the military's medical examiner shows the cost in lost lives from inadequate armor, even as the Pentagon continues to publicly defend its protection of the troops. Officials have said they are shipping the best armor to Iraq as quickly as possible. At the same time, they have maintained that it is impossible to shield forces from the increasingly powerful improvised explosive devices used by insurgents. Yet the Pentagon's own study reveals the equally lethal threat of bullets.

The vulnerability of the military's body armor has been known since the start of the war, and is part of a series of problems that have surrounded the protection of American troops. Still, the Marine Corps did not begin buying additional plates to cover the sides of their troops until this September, when it ordered 28,800 sets, Marine Corps officials acknowledge.

The Army, which has the largest force in Iraq, is still deciding what to purchase, according to Army procurement officials. They said the Army is deciding between various sizes of plates to give its 130,000 soldiers; the officials said they hope to issue contracts this month.

Additional forensic studies by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's unit that were obtained by The Times indicate that about 340 American troops have died solely from torso wounds.

Military officials said they had originally decided against using the extra plates because they were concerned they added too much weight to the vests or constricted the movement of soldiers. Marine Corps officials said the findings of the Pentagon study caused field commanders to override those concerns in the interest of greater protection.

"As the information became more prevalent and aware to everybody that in fact these were casualty sites that they needed to be worried about, then people were much more willing to accept that weight on their body," said Major Wendell Leimbach, a body armor specialist with Marine Corps Systems Command, the marine procurement unit.

The Pentagon has been collecting the data on wounds since the beginning of the war in part to determine the effectiveness of body armor. The military's medical examiner, Craig T. Mallak, told a military panel in 2003 that the information "screams to be published." But it would take nearly two years.

The Marine Corps said it asked for the data in August 2004; but it needed to pay the medical examiner $107,000 to have the data analyzed. Marine officials said funding and other delays resulted in the work not starting until December 2004. It finally began receiving the information by June 2005. The shortfalls in bulletproof vests are just one of the armor problems the Pentagon continues to struggle with as the war in Iraq approaches the three-year mark, The Times has found in an ongoing examination of the military procurement system.

The production of a new armored truck called the Cougar, which military officials said has thus far withstood every insurgent attack, has fallen three months behind schedule. The small company making the truck has been beset by a host of production and legal problems.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is still relying on another small factory in Ohio to armor all of the military's principal transport truck, the Humvee, and it remains backlogged with orders. The facility, owned by Armor Holdings, increased production in December after reports in The Times about delays drew criticism from Congress. But the Marine Corps said it is still waiting for about 2,000 of these vehicles to replace other Humvees in Iraq that are more lightly armored, and does not expect final delivery until June.

An initiative begun by the Pentagon nearly two years ago to speed up production by having additional firms armor new Humvees remains incomplete, Army officials said.

Body armor has gone through a succession of problems in Iraq. First, there were prolonged shortages of the plates that make the vests bulletproof. This year, the Pentagon began replacing the plates with a stronger model that is more resistant to certain insurgent attacks.

Almost from the beginning, some soldiers asked for additional protection to stop bullets from slicing through their sides. In the fall of 2003, when troops began hanging their crotch protectors under their arms, the Army's Rapid Equipping Force shipped several hundred plates to protect their sides and shoulders. Individual soldiers and units continued to buy their own sets.

The Army's former acting secretary, Les Brownlee, said in a recent interview that he was shown numerous designs for expanded body armor back in 2003, and instructed his staff to weigh their benefits against the perceived threat without losing sight of the main task: eliminating the shortages of plates for the chest and back.

Army procurement officials said that their efforts to purchase side ceramic plates have been encumbered by their much larger force, and that they wanted to provide manufacturers with detailed specifications. Also, they said their plates will be made to resist the stronger insurgent attacks.

The Marines said they opted to take the older version of ceramic to speed delivery. As of early last month, officials said marines in Iraq had received 2,200 of the more than 28,000 sets of plates that are being bought at a cost of about $260 each.

Marine officials said they have supplied troops with soft shoulder protection that can repel some shrapnel, but remain concerned that ceramic shoulder plates would be too restrictive. Similarly, they said they believe the chest and back plates are as large as they can be without unduly limiting the movement of troops.

The Times obtained the 3-page Pentagon report after a military advocacy group, Soldiers for the Truth, learned of its existence. The group posted an article about the report on its website earlier this week. The Times delayed publication of this article for more than a week until the Pentagon confirmed the veracity of its report. Pentagon officials declined to discuss details of the wound data, saying it would aid the enemy.

"Our preliminary research suggests that as many as 42 percent of the Marine casualties who died from isolated torso injuries could have been prevented with improved protection in the areas surrounding the plated areas of the vest," the study concludes. Another 23 percent might have been saved with side plates that extend below the arms, while 15 percent more could have benefited from shoulder plates, the report says. In all, 526 marines have been killed in combat in Iraq. A total of 1,706 American troops have died in combat.

The findings and other research by military pathologists suggests that an analysis of all combat deaths in Iraq, including those of Army personnel, would show that 300 or more lives might have been saved with improved body armor.

Military officials and defense contractors said the Pentagon's procurement troubles have stemmed in part from miscalculations that underestimated the strength of the insurgency, and from years of cost-cutting that left some armoring firms on the brink of collapse as they waited for new orders.

To help defeat roadside ambushes, the military in May 2005 contracted to buy 122 Cougars whose special V-shaped hull helps deflect roadside bombs, military officials said. But the Pentagon gave the job to a small firm in South Carolina, Force Protection, that had never mass-produced vehicles. Company officials said a string of blunders has pushed the completion date to June.

A dozen prototypes shipped to Iraq have been recalled from the field to replace a failing transmission. Steel was cut to the wrong size before the truck's design drawings were perfected. Several managers have left the firm.

Company officials said they also lost time in an inter-service skirmish. The Army, which is buying the bulk of the vehicles, asked for its trucks to be delivered before the Marine vehicles, and company officials said that move upended their production process until the Army agreed to get back in line behind the marines. "It is what it is, and we're running as fast as we can to change it," Gordon McGilton, the company's chief executive, said in an interview at its plant in Ladson, S.C.

-continued...

PVS
On July 5, two former employees brought a federal false claims case that accuses Force Protection of falsifying records to cover up defective workmanship. They allege that the actions "compromise the immediate and long term integrity of the vehicles and result in a deficient product," according to legal documents filed under seal in the United States District Court in Charleston and obtained by The Times.

The legal claim also accuses the company of falsifying records to deceive the military into believing the firm could meet the production deadlines. The United States Attorney's office in South Carolina declined to comment on the case. The Marine Corps says the Justice Department did not notify it about the case until December.

Force Protection officials said they had not been made aware of the legal case. They acknowledged making mistakes in rushing to fill the order, but said there were multiple systems in place to monitor the quality of the trucks, and that they were not aware of any deficiencies that would jeopardize the troops.

------------------------------------------------------------------
thats right. 80% of soldiers killed by upper body wounds could have survived if only they went to war with the army they wished they had, or an army that gave a shit. but hey, this could just be yet more leftist propaganda from the bias liberal pentagon.

KharmaDog
F*cking brutal.

Ushgarak
Look... it's easy to say these things with hindsight. But throughout the entirity of history armies have gone to war with relatively shoddy equipment, where the potential for better equipment existed. That's because it is never easy to justify extra expense on something that you have no absolute certainties about- not least because people hate military expenditure so much.

It takes a long time for these changes to trickle down, even as practical data comes in. I mean, World War II was fought with a shocking state of equipment until years in, and that was the largest conflict ever seen with staggering effort directed towards it. The Iraq situation- in fac, the combination of all military situations that the Western world is dealing with- is tiny by comparison.

Korea, Vietnam, even the original Gulf War... no army is ever properly supplied. Actually, Korea was another one that makes these comments seem tiny as well.

Also, it is dodgy to throw around the idea that so-many hundred people might be still alive when none of this has gone through any practical testing yet- there have been red herrings in this area before.

PVS
the problem was brought up over a year ago. troops complained to rumsfelf and were met with smartass non-answers and no solution at all. please dont claim innocent ignorance on their part.

--------------------------------------------------------
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer - December 8, 2004

CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait - Disgrunted U.S. soldiers complained to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Wednesday about the lack of armor for their vehicles and long deployments, drawing a blunt retort from the Pentagon chief. "You go to war with the Army you have," he said in a rare public airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops....

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental Combat Team that is comprised mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly two years after the start of the war that ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

"We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north," Wilson said after asking again.

Rumsfeld replied that troops should make the best of the conditions they face and said the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible.

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up," Rumsfeld said.
--------------------------------------------------------

and as far as "no army is ever properly supplied"...what does that justify, and/or who does this exonerate exactly?

KharmaDog
I think the problem is this, The soldiers complained that they had to put sheets of corrugated steel on their Humvees for protection. Once that concern was addressed publicly humvees were equipped with sufficient armour and shipped to the war zone.

The question is, if it was already common knowledge that those vehicles were not properly equipped, and that to properly equip them was done relatively quickly and easily, then why did the authorities in charge waite until this was a public issue?

PVS
nickels and dimes

soleran30
lol bigger better now.................liberal media blowing up a dust storm.

PVS
Originally posted by soleran30
lol bigger better now.................liberal media blowing up a dust storm.
its a pentagon report.

why dont you try reading the article before you exhibit diarrea of the mouth and constipation of the brain...mkay? thx

soleran30
Originally posted by PVS
its a pentagon report.

why dont you try reading the article before you exhibit diarrea of the mouth and constipation of the brain...mkay? thx

oh yeah sorry liberals aren't allowed in the pentagon..........think before you open your mouth. Personaly agendas are as obvious there as the WhiteHouse so stow it.

PVS
are you f***ing braindead? the pentagon is....THE F****** PENTAGON!!!!
its a military organisation and the only reason such a study was conducted was because senior military officials requested it. the f****** liberals? idiot

can you please stfu and not blow mindless shit all over this thread?

soleran30
Originally posted by PVS
are you f***ing braindead? the pentagon is....THE F****** PENTAGON!!!!
its a military organisation and the only reason such a study was conducted was because senior military officials requested it. the f****** liberals? idiot

can you please stfu and not blow mindless shit all over this thread?


lol please then with your long experiece in and around the military explain how this is for the betterment of the Soldier................

You do realize people have to justify their jobs even in the Pentagon and when someone comes up with "their agenda" its shit like this that gets reported on.

KharmaDog
Originally posted by soleran30
oh yeah sorry liberals aren't allowed in the pentagon..........think before you open your mouth. Personaly agendas are as obvious there as the WhiteHouse so stow it.


That wasn't a very well thought out post Soleran. Seriously, it sounds like you started typing before you started thinking. Do you actually believe that there are Liberal entities in the pentagon whose genda is separate from the rest of the pentagon?

soleran30
Originally posted by KharmaDog
That wasn't a very well thought out post Soleran. Seriously, it sounds like you started typing before you started thinking. Do you actually believe that there are Liberal entities in the pentagon whose genda is separate from the rest of the pentagon?


What I do know is that there are seperate groups in the pentagon and they all have their own agenda. Is the military packed with all conservatives?

PVS
its the military

you know, chain of command?
right up to the leader "commander in chief"

there ARE NO agendas behind their doings besides that
of the military and by extention, the administration.
you must be retarded.

soleran30
Originally posted by PVS
its the military

you know, chain of command?
right up to the leader "commander in chief"

there ARE NO agendas behind their doings besides that
of the military and by extention, the administration.
you must be retarded.


since you clearly know so much about this tell me with your vast experience have you worked in/around the pentagon or any other military establishment?

PVS
Originally posted by soleran30
since you clearly know so much about this tell me with your vast experience have you worked in/around the pentagon or any other military establishment?

its common knowledge that the pentagon is the official nerve center of the military. its not a frikin media conglomerate.

i cant believe im arguing this. but i guess your only purpose here is to dumb down any thread you dont like with irrelivent arguments against commonly known fact as your only means of winning. sad.

soleran30
Yes clearly there is no other purpose behind this report then good reporting. I mean its a secret pentagon study! That right there makes it look shady.

You see I have been in the Pentagon and State Dept and Naval Intelligence center and they do have an agenda and the branch's all have staff that write or are journalists......this document if you would read it again is filled with fluff and is shit as seen in the first line of Secret Pentagon Study. If its "secret" that shit would have gone no where anyone could have documented it. However since its from the Pentagon it must be truthful and unbiased, whatever.

PVS
so in other words the people that allowed it to LEAK might have an agenda?

im sure thats probably the case, but A-G-A-I-N, how does this discredit the report, or as i've been arguing with you, discredit the PENTAGON??????

soleran30
January 6, 2006
Extra Armor Could Have Saved Many Lives, Study Shows

By MICHAEL MOSS
A secret Pentagon study has found

ok so what is so secret about this study...............its retarded catch phrases like this that end up getting people excited and then no one looks past that crap. I am not saying that Pentagon is no good but this article from the Pentagon is shit........read it then read it again and after you decipher all the could's and maybe's you'll see this is something to just get people excited about some military action.

PVS
Originally posted by soleran30
January 6, 2006
Extra Armor Could Have Saved Many Lives, Study Shows

By MICHAEL MOSS
A secret Pentagon study has found

ok so what is so secret about this study...............its retarded catch phrases like this that end up getting people excited and then no one looks past that crap. I am not saying that Pentagon is no good but this article from the Pentagon is shit........read it then read it again and after you decipher all the could's and maybe's you'll see this is something to just get people excited about some military action.

wtf are you saying? keep reading it until some hidden meaning pops out and i see some liberal agenda? the pentagon liberals conducted the study?

have you even read the article yet?

of coarse not. you read exactly what you just copied and pasted, and from then on verbal diarrea. nice

soleran30
Originally posted by PVS
wtf are you saying? keep reading it until some hidden meaning pops out and i see some liberal agenda? the pentagon liberals conducted the study?

have you even read the article yet?

of coarse not. you read exactly what you just copied and pasted, and from then on verbal diarrea. nice


Flame on, seriously you posted the article. A liberal doesn't have to write the article for it to be liberal media. So go back to your mindnumbing bashing and continue to read your crap and realize that stories like that one are junk used by media to illicit specific responses and get rises out of people.

Lana
You say that as though the conservative media doesn't do the exact same thing.

PVS
you implied that liberals were somehow embedded in the pentagon and conducted some faux study in their name. or else you would not have questioned the credibility of the study, but rather the agenda of those who leaked the study which was supposed to remain classified material.

this makes you pretty toolish and all your posts a waste of space.

and thats it, have your last pointless word on this, so you can cease spewing excrement all over a legit topic.

kthx

soleran30
Originally posted by PVS
you implied that liberals were somehow embedded in the pentagon and conducted some faux study in their name. or else you would not have questioned the credibility of the study, but rather the agenda of those who leaked the study which was supposed to remain classified material.

this makes you pretty toolish and all your posts a waste of space.

and thats it, have your last pointless word on this, so you can cease spewing excrement all over a legit topic.

kthx


I said liberal media go back reread then come back and post more flame...........afterall its what you like to do..........

Yes Lana conservative media does this as well however there isn't as much mainstream conservative media. Regardless its crap meant to stir things up because thats what PVS likes to do.

Ushgarak
PVS, that outburst was over the top., Try and reign it in.

And whilst you are there, it's very naive to not think that the Pentagon is not riven with internal politics and agendas, including liberal ones. I don't really see that in tis report but Sleran is entitled to make the accusation.

Meanwhile... I don't care if it was highlighted a year before. It might have been highlighted ten years before. I'd be amazed if the concern was only raised within the last 12 months.

But soldiers ALWAYS whine that they don't have enough, and it normally takes a serious conflict to see the truth of things. There are lots of false leads in this area, and you talk about funds as if there are an infinite amount of them- yet people continuously complain about the military budget compared to, say, money to spend on schools and hospitals.

To make this clear- there are no big Generals who are getting rich from deliberately depriving their troops of equipment. No-one is gaining from any of this. Mistakes get made in all parts of war all the time- and that's both ways around, because sometimes a mistake is made when common soldiers are listened to, too.

None of this is in the slightest bit abnormal. Armies suffer like this all the time, and it is actually less likely now than it used to be.

overlord
Well, I certainly feel for these soldiers wich can't even comprehend how bad war will turn out for them. I think they have the right to complain.
All that dumb propaganda and not even some basic logic in making proper armor? Tsk tsk tsk..

PVS
Originally posted by Ushgarak
PVS, that outburst was over the top., Try and reign it in.
sorry, perpetual nonesense and flooding of a thread with misinformed and deperately conjured up garbage annoys me.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And whilst you are there, it's very naive to not think that the Pentagon is not riven with internal politics and agendas, including liberal ones. I don't really see that in tis report but Sleran is entitled to make the accusation.

the accusation that the leaking of this classified info was probably liberal driven, but not the creation of, which i pointed out numerous times. the guy was trying to discredit the info, not the means in which it got to this thread.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But soldiers ALWAYS whine that they don't have enough, and it normally takes a serious conflict to see the truth of things. There are lots of false leads in this area, and you talk about funds as if there are an infinite amount of them- yet people continuously complain about the military budget compared to, say, money to spend on schools and hospitals.

yet people would unanimously offer that money with the knowledge that it went onto a soldier's person and on their vehicle to protect them. even most "unamerican" leftists want their own to come home safe.

i really dont see how any of this proves that it just doesnt matter, or how a marine is "whining" because they would prefer to not be shot through their vital organs when the means to prevent this are readily available.

Darth Jello
"Any commander who cares too much about the lives of his troops is a p*ssy"
-Richard Perle
Architect of the Iraq War, Cofounder of PNAC, suspected Israeli spy, former Reagan and Bush I cabinet member, arms lobbyist.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.