Why does the U.S. military keep making negligent mistakes like CHOOSING THE WRONG BODY ARMOR that fails?

Question

It fails miserably. Now the Army is admitting mistake after it was exposed on TV.

If I were a soldier that had my vest penetrated by a bullet, I would sue for obvious negligence by our military leaders that we taxpayers pay to do their jobs right and to not make blatant mistakes.

To you folks telling me to read the article. I'll tell you that I saw the story on TV last week AND IT WAS ABOUT GOVERNMENT ISSUED ARMOR that was not the best available.

NOW, WTF you have to say?

Answer 1

You saw it on tv, it was a different story than the articles that have been provided for you... ok, where is it? Where's the link? Surely you must be able to find it and back up your question.

Oh wait, you didn't give a link. Maybe you should lay of the drugs while watching the evening news...

Answer 2

There is a lot of budgetary constraint placed on the purchases. Take a look at the Federal budget. As it stands, the DOD takes ~45% of the entire budget. That includes all branches of the military. People already complain that there is too much money spent there. So, when it comes down to making purchasing decisions, you have 3 choices. 1) buy nothing. 2) buy the most expensive/absolute best 3) buy the best option within the budget.

When these sorts of items are purchased, they are tested first. The military supply does not just willy-nilly buy items because someone says here it is, despite what a lot of people may believe. The body armor purchased passed those tests. Did they later prove to fail on occasion? Yes. Does that mean negligence? No. But, it does mean they should probably do some better/different testing this next round.

Answer 3

I'll pile on here, Do some research. Do really believe that because you saw it on TV it must be true? How truly naive you are.


It has been proven in side by side tests that the Interceptor armor is superior to that of Dragon skin armor. It is more effective at stopping a wider array of ammunition more consistently. It provides superior "blast" protection from fragmentation. Though not as flexible, it is less bulky and weights 20 pounds less.
I find all this debate a little humorous in the fact that less than 10% of casualties have been caused by small arms and in most of those cases it wouldn't matter what body armor the soldier was wearing. If a blast can destroy a Bradley or Humvee any amount of body armor is not going to do much anyway and debating the minimal differences in these to armors is really more a political tool than anything else.
I have seen and worn both armors and prefer the Interceptor.

Answer 4

"Wrong Body Armor"????

Get a grip. Still better than bare flesh. Still the best outfitted soldier in the conflict if not the world.

History is full of stories about less than perfect gear. Take a look at the Sherman vs the Tiger. I guess if you were a US tanker you would have sued the governement too.

Grow up.

Edit..

Now what am I going to say. Same thing. Get a grip on reality. Since the Roman Legions went to war, individual equipment has always been a combination of what is available and what is affordable. The origninal gear passed the tests better and cheaper than the others.

So... Grow Up.

Answer 5

(1) The body armor is question is not government issue. It is privately purchased equipment.

(2) No body armor in the world is 100% bullet proof. Even a vest that is rated up to a certain caliber is still not 100% resistant.

Your rant falls miserably short of accurate. Go away.

Answer 6

I will tell you to read the news article about the Dragon Skin body armor being produced by a private company. The Army has just released their testing results and show how it will not stop a rifle bullet at reasonable distances. Lately, the televised media has made mistakes in their reporting to "sensationalize" the news to get viewers. Personal research does pay off.

Answer 7

Well you have to take the following into context:

What makes a bullet-proof vest bullet proof


Do you design it to stop 9mm or 5.56mm, what happens when the enemy starts to use larger caibre weapons you gonna sue them too.
Most so called bullet-proof vests are incorrectly named, they are there to stop fragmentation wounds like shrapnel.

You cover the soldier in protection he cant do his job, try to move quick the gear slows you down, a soldiers best asset is speed, getting up and down and returning fire, there will always be battlefield casualties, goes with the pay-check.

And remember most military contracts get awarded by the Department of Defence to the LOWEST bidder, low bidder means low rate quality and also means low rate materials.

Answer 8

The 'Army' did not choose this armor. In fact the Army evaluated this armor and determined it to be inferior.

That is why the Army is enforcing the rule that only military-issue body armor can be worn.

Answer 9

Unfortunately, everything the military buys is subject to a bid process that is completely choked with regulations and requirements passed by congressman in attempts to help constituents. In order to sell to the government there is preference to low price, woman owned, minority owned and meeting a purchase specification in order. On top of all that, if you design a better body armor, the enemy will invent a better bullet.

Answer 10

It depends on who has the contract.. for providing the body armor. Which friend makes the money. Sad but true And of course who they want the money to go to.
Would you rather hear the truth or what you want hear. It has been proven that we can have better equipment from vehicles to vest. We don't and we are paying an outlandish price for equipment that isn't safe. We aren't shopping at bargain basement so you tell me why we are paying to much for so little.
Someone is making a profit.
We keep giving them the excuse that they are idiots...and they are laughing at us. They know exactly what they are doing and they could care less if we think they are idiots or not.
I will tell you this, the longer we let them get by with being idiots and not holding them accountable the longer this will continue and nothing will be done to improve for our young men.