Body Armor

Pentagon Study Links Fatalities to Body Armor
By MICHAEL MOSS
Published: January 7, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/07armor.html
ei=5094&en=6a69abccc77d978f&hp=&
ex=1136696400&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1136652656-7siNHjt1FyTqfRABrDIB9w


A Marine Report:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf
/international/20060107_ARMOR_TEXT.pdf

It suggests that approximately 38% of the Casualties in Iraq could have been prevented with correct Body Armor. This would indicate that first simple Costs of these unnecessary Injuries cost in excess of $1.6 bn so far, with long-run Costs beyond $4 bn; not evaluating the Cost of Insurance and Subsistence payments. Moss confirmed the substance of the Marine Report and his other information at the Pentagon, the later figures are the Author's own estimates.

Moss states the new armored vehicle, the Cougar, is three months behind schedule, while the Marine Corps is still waiting for armored Humvees to replace their unarmored Humvees now in use. Interservice friction and Army delays are slowing down the process of providing armor, while the sole Contractor for the Humvees, like the sole Contractor for the Cougars, are swamped with Orders which they cannot fulfill in the short-run. The Cougars also possessed transmissions which Prototypes have shown to be inferior to the task at hand.

This Author is not an advocate of heavy personal Body Armor. The weight shortens operational range for Infantry, while obstructing personal movement; a vital necessity under Combat conditions. There is the additional problem of Heat exchange for all armor under the combat conditions of Iraq. An ideal scenario may be Infantry traveling Two to a armored Four-Wheeler, with one to conduct surveillance while the Other drives and search for Mines. The Problem in this venue remains the power of the vehicle that has to propel the total weight including the armor. The real Solution is cessation of Operations in Iraq. lgl