Don't know enough about the rifle issues to comment, but the body armor issue is a tempest in a teapot.

First off, from a "fairness" (if such a concept can even be talked about in a military setting!)
standpoint, look at this from the CO's POV. He's got some portion of his troops who can afford to buy the "better" armor, and some who simply can't. Does this mean that whose life is "more" valuble is a function of their wealth? The argument here is akin to the school uniform issue.

Second, in the context of Iraq, it's not a major issue. The bad guys simply don't engage our troops with small arms; they've learned that they get their asses handed to them. When they do engage in long distance sniping, they use AP ammo, and neither the issue stuff nor the dragonskins will stop it. The issue armor is adequate for the small IED's and there isn't any body armor in the world going to do you any good when three 500# bombs buried in the road go off under your humvee.

The people pushing this are bitching about Natick's agenda, but there are a whole lot of axes being ground in this story, and the article ignores the others.

I have absolutely nothing to do with any of the industries or people involved with this, and my viewpoint has been shaped by conversations with my son, who has spent a year over there with a "pointy-end" unit.

His opinion - YOu want to protect the troops, get better IED countermeasures in place, like the jammer that the IDF uses.

Email is human readable - aloud

Every time someone accuses the military of ignoring the troops needs when it comes to equipment, I am strongly reminded of the .45 ACP vs 9mm debate that constantly rages on message boards and on blogs. Any advantages that one type enjoys over the other is completely dependent on how you word the question.

Strategypage.com reports that our troops in Iraq generally don't like the new versions of the standard body armor, the type with the side panels, because it is so heavy that they are easy targets while wearing it. (Here is another article on the same subject.) The Defense Review article you linked to points out that Dragon Skin is just as heavy as the armor with the side panels, but it provides superior protection for that weight. But if the side panel armor is so heavy that the guys at the pointy end don't want to use it, then....

So why not go back to the old armor without side panels if that is what the troops want? Dunno.

Another aspect that everyone is ignoring is money. This article discusses how the Army alone has spent over $400 million on body armor in the past few years just to augment and upgrade what we already had in the inventory. How much would it cost to *REPLACE* all of the body armor? A lot more than $400 million, I'd bet.

My admittedly limited background is in law enforcement, not the military. I am always amused when people get some pet project that they want to see happen. More cops on the street? Better equipment for the police? Cameras so every single interview that every single officer conducts is recorded in such a way that the courts will accept it as evidence? Okay. Who is going to pay for it?

We don't have unlimited resources. Those who want reforms claim that lives are being lost only because of vested interest and bureaucratic bullheadedness, not because concerned people have to make hard choices in the real world. Their constant claims that they want to save lives reminds me of the anti-gunners who claim that it is worth it if one life is saved.

James