Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Wyoming sues ATFE | Main | Another TSA foul up »

Military procurement

Posted by David Hardy · 11 May 2006 02:51 PM

Defense Review raises some questions regarding procurement of body armor, and why our troops are carrying weapony designed a half century ago, when better stuff is available.

2 Comments | Leave a comment

bud | May 12, 2006 11:31 AM | Reply

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

James R. Rummel | May 18, 2006 4:05 AM | Reply

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

Leave a comment