Interceptor OTV Body Armor Cost Lives, An Internal USMC Reports Shows

[thedrifter]

Interceptor OTV Body Armor Cost Lives, An Internal USMC Reports Shows <br />
STTF <br />
Nathaniel R. Helms <br />
<br />
A recent United States Marine Corps forensic study obtained by DefenseWatch slams the Interceptor...

[Nagalfar]

Am I the only one who think these guys are the rags best friends? I got mine.. let them know how much you appreciate them protecting our brothers and sisters they way they do.. they can be found here..

estevens@dhbt.com

Semper Fi

[marinemom]

The Washington Post picked up on the story - and that ususally means that the other major ppapers in the country will follow. Maybe something will happen a bit faster - we can only hope.


Body-Armor Gaps Are Shown to Endanger Troops
Pentagon Studies Call Deaths Preventable

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 7, 2006

The Marine Corps and Army are working to upgrade body armor to prevent fatalities caused by torso wounds from gunshots and explosions, after classified Pentagon forensic studies highlighted how gaps in current armor are leaving troops vulnerable.

A recent military study of a random sample of scores of Marine deaths from torso wounds between the start of the Iraq war in March 2003 and mid-2005 found that more protection on the chest, back, sides and shoulder areas could have prevented up to 80 percent of the fatalities. It was the first time military forensic experts have reported on torso injuries to the Pentagon, according to a statement from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington.


U.S. troops in Iraq often complain that insurgents -- especially snipers -- have demonstrated they know how to exploit the gaps in the current armor. For example, enemy snipers have killed U.S. forces with single shots to the neck or upper torso.

The Pentagon has faced a steady stream of criticism from Republicans and Democrats in Congress who assert that the military has not moved quickly enough to provide the most advanced armor to U.S. troops -- from more heavily armored Humvees and trucks to bulletproof vests.

But Army and Marine Corps officials say developing, producing and fielding better armor is a constant effort as the military faces ever-changing and more lethal insurgent tactics in Iraq. An important consideration, they say, is the trade-off between heavier armor and troops' ability to move quickly and return fire.

"As we find the battlefield has changed, we constantly are trying to enhance the survivability and mobility of the American soldier," said Army spokesman Paul Boyce. "Throughout the fielding of body armor to our soldiers, improvements have been made and continue to be made." He cited five different upgrades to protective vests, as well as enhanced ceramic plates.

The Army avoids detailing the ballistic capabilities of body armor so as not to give an advantage to enemy forces, he said. "What we don't do is talk about what we're going to do next to change the body armor or the composites in it."

Currently U.S. soldiers and Marines use the Interceptor Body Armor System, issued beginning in 1999 and widely fielded since the Iraq war as an upgrade to an earlier bulletproof vest. So far, the Army has fielded more than 500,000 sets.

The medical examiner study analyzed a random sample of 93 Marine deaths from torso wounds and found that 60 percent of the fatalities were caused by gunshots. "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. Nearly 23 percent might have benefited from protection along the mid-axillary line of the lateral chest. Another 15 percent died from impacts through the unprotected shoulder and upper arm."

Findings from the study, conducted by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner for the Marine Corps, were published earlier this week on the Web site of Soldiers for the Truth, an advocacy group for U.S. troops, and two versions of the study were confirmed by the medical examiner. An article on the study appeared Friday evening on the New York Times Web site.

The medical examiner received $107,000 in funding from the Marine Corps in December 2004 to conduct the study, which marks "the first time information on torso injuries was disseminated" to the Defense Department, said a statement from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. The report evaluating body armor was based on full autopsies, which are conducted on all U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of the cause, said Christopher Kelly, public affairs director for the institute. "Information regarding the effectiveness of body armor has been shared with those who design and field personal protective gear," he said.

The Army and Marine Corps have recalled thousands of protective vests in recent months because they failed some ballistic requirements when they were manufactured, although an Army spokesman described the vests' departure from required standards as extremely small and said many are no longer in use.

[thedrifter]

Extra armor might have saved lives of troops

A Pentagon study of Marines killed in Iraq shows up to 80% hit in the torso could have survived.

Michael Moss | the New York Times
Posted January 7, 2006

A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the Marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor.

Such 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 now worn by the majority of troops 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 last September, when it ordered 28,800 sets, Marine 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 was deciding between various sizes of plates to give its 130,000 soldiers, adding that they hoped 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.

The Pentagon has been collecting the data on wounds since the beginning of the war in March 2003 in part to determine the effectiveness of body armor. The military's medical examiner, Dr. 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 financing and other delays had resulted in the study not starting until December 2004. It finally began receiving the information by June 2005.

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 in 2003, and had 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 their efforts to purchase side ceramic plates had been encumbered by the Army's much larger force in Iraq compared with the Marines' and that they wanted to provide manufacturers with detailed specifications. Also, they said their plates would 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 had supplied troops with soft shoulder protection that can repel some shrapnel, but remained concerned that ceramic shoulder plates would be too restrictive. Similarly, they said they thought the chest and back plates were as large as they could be without unduly limiting the movement of troops.

The Times obtained the three-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 Web site earlier this week. The Times delayed publication of this article for more than a week until the Pentagon confirmed the authenticity of its report.

Pentagon officials would not 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.

An additional 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 1,720 American troops have died in combat there, about 100 of them from Florida.

Violence threatens to provoke backlash by Shiites. Page A16

[Nagalfar]

Makes me mad as hell.. when our leaders in congress want a raise, or to give away millions of our dollars to someone other than America, they know how to use FAST TRACK.. when America's finest is getting bent over by a DOD contracter who is clearly, and has been costing lives.. its all back burner stuff, IF it ever makes it to the burner..

[yellowwing]

Dang, this burns me up to! The United States has the best scientists and engineers in the world. Just give one of these geeks $10 million and he'll have a usable body armor design that can stand up to a .50 cal.

[thedrifter]

U.S. Soldiers Question Use of More Armor
By RYAN LENZ, Associated Press Writer
14 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.

AP Military Writer Robert Burns in Washington contributed to this report.

Ellie

[greensideout]

"Body armor costs lives." ???
I don't really belive anyone was killed because they put on body armor.

The real grip here is as I read it, troops CAN be killed wearing the armor. Of course they can! There is no way to TOTALLY protect the troops from the weapons that they face being used againest them.

It's a cop out in a way to blame the armor. An excuess for not finding and employing new and better tactics. Of reviewing opporations and making changes in how they are performed and what they are to accomplish. Is the risk worth the fulfillment of that mission? Etc.

As long as there is a war, troops are going to die. That fact cannot be covered in armor, no matter how well designed.

GSO