Army Bans Use of Privately Bought Armor

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aquajet, Mar 30, 2006.

  1. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #1
    Link

    (my emphasis)


    While the Army is unable to "determine the veracity" of Pinnacle's claim that their armor is superior, they can tell us for certain that the Army's standard issue armor is "categorically" better than any other commercially available armor.

    That's nice.

    And in other news...

    Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin vs. Interceptor Body Armor--Fight's On
    Pinnacle Armor Dragon Skin vs. Interceptor Body Armor Continued...

     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    i assume the suppliers of the army's armor are up in arms about other suppliers muscling in. is this anything other than business interests taking top priority?
     
  3. grapes911 Moderator emeritus

    grapes911

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Location:
    Citizens Bank Park
    #3
    That was my first thought. But the more I think about it, how can you be sure that the armor you purchased is sufficient? There is somewhat of a safety issue here. But, yeah, it's probably mostly a business issue.
     
  4. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #4
    Better than no armor at all isn't it? Why else would they buy their own. Soldiers don't exactly make much money.
     
  5. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #5
    I see the beauracratic desk operators are doing what they do best in the Army. Amazing in the first place they sent these guys out with no armor let alone now trying to tell them its our cheap armor or nothing. If i was in Iraq i would tell the army to F off and wear whatever i thought i needed.
     
  6. Mike Teezie macrumors 68020

    Mike Teezie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    #6
    Articles like this make me so glad my little brother is in SF.

    They get to carry whatever they want, anywhere they want. Guns, armor, clothes, haircuts, whatever. Whatever gets the job done the best.

    I feel sorry for the guys in the "regular" Army. Hopefully their superiors will sort of overlook all this if something better can be had.
     
  7. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #7
    So I've heard. Which I am glad to hear. Unfortunately, in many theatres where there is a high political value assigned (like Iraq and Afghanistan), the SF get lumped in with all the other Armed Forces and their command structures - everyone wants a piece of the action.

    Sadly, this results in the SF having to go through bureaucratic channels for mission approval and things like air support, which in other smaller theatres are dedicated to just the SF.

    If you don't mind me asking, what does your brother do exactly in SF? Where is he stationed? I am curious - If you can't or don't feel like answering, that's just fine.

    I guess I am just saying that his efforts are appreciated.
     
  8. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    Wait, that does not compute. I thought this forum was full of soldier-hating, un-American, traitorous scum?

    Without naming any names of course as to where I would get an impression like that...
     
  9. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #9
    it took me half your post to realize you weren't talking about san francisco.

    guns? armor? huh? :)
     
  10. Mike Teezie macrumors 68020

    Mike Teezie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    #10
    BF - Thanks for the kind words. He's actually in Phase IV of the Q course, so it's still technically wrong to call him SF. He finished SERE school a few weeks ago, and he'll begin what they call job training on Monday.

    There are four "jobs" in SF - Engineering, Medical, Weapons, and Communication. The titles are a little misleading, as every person who gets tabbed can do it all to an extent, with each guy having an area of absolute expertise. He'll be Communications. It's pretty neat, he just went before the review board, and it looks like he'll be getting promoted to Sgt. at the ripe age of 20. Then, he'll get tabbed (officially a Green Beret) in October, and he'll be promoted Staff Sgt. Not bad for a then-to-be 21 year old!

    As to where he'll be stationed, it depends on what Group he gets assigned to. He wants to be in 5th Group, which would be Kentucky, or preferably 10th Group, which would be Colorado.

    It's interesting to talk to him about the bureaucracy of the Army. He said that SF and Delta guys keep to themselves as a whole, as the majority of their practices from training to combat are very much frowned upon by all the old guys in charge. Most interesting is how he describes that the regular army really frowns upon SF because they don't uphold that "home of the heartland, baseball, and apple pie" that the command wants the Army to have. I found that incredibly odd. These old hawks have this idealized perspective on what the Army is - like it's just a bunch of good 'ol boys who want to shoot some terrorists and get back home to their Chevy or some s**t.

    As for highly political campaigns, forget what you see on TV. When I was visiting my brother when he first got to North Carolina, I met the first American to hit ground in Afghanistan after 9/11, an SF guy. You would be shocked if you knew when his ODA got there versus when the media showed the massive troop deployments into the country. Really shocked. You would be ever more shocked if you knew the total number of people that were sent. I was amazed. Think small. As in, very, very small.

    Now as far as support from the higher ups on a campaign like this, it's sort of a non-existant thing, because there's no one there besides the SF teams. SF are largely deployed to get on the ground first, see what the deal is, and establish a rapport with allies on the ground. Get them trained, help them out, and get them doing their own thing for God's sake. The only problem is, is that the conventional Army usually follows and blows everything to hell with "Shock and Awe".

    Getting back to my brother - it's funny to think that right wingers are the only people who support or even "get" the military. My family is pretty liberal(by this country's far right standards), and it's hard to support the military more than we do. I know I have a hard time listening to people say the democrats don't support the military, as me, my brother in the military, and the rest of our family are treacherous, pinko, terrorist loving, tree hugging democrats.
     
  11. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #11
    I like to point out that those who support the Iraq thing support the war, not the troops. Often they support the war at the cost of the troops. Just look at how they don't equip the troops properly, plan the war poorly with no exit strategy, cut their benefits while they're over there, then cut the benefits further when they get back, and even worse when they try to retire. I've had friends have issues with their pensions, medical benefits, and even have one friend whose wife qualifies for food stamps while he's in Iraq. Yet they claim to be pro troop.

    If the Dems had any stones, they'd be pointing this stuff out more.
     
  12. superbovine macrumors 68030

    superbovine

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    #12
    At the beginning of the war that was true, the bigger problem is weather or not there is better armor out there. If I believed that I could obtain better and armor than they one the military issued me, I would be getting it.
     
  13. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #13
    That is true. I'm was just thinking of when I took my friend to the airport as he was being deployed to Iraq with a bunch of equipment he bought himself, then taking his wife to the store so she could use her food stamps because she couldn't afford much. If the military was providing equipment for you that was superior (or if they were giving you armor at all), there wouldn't be an issue. My point was just that who would go out of their way to buy inferior equipment. And I don't know what's worse, when the don't give you any armor, or when they force you to use (especially if you have to buy) their armor that may in fact be inferior. Sounds more like bureaucracy and/or "exclusive contracts" with their suppliers than worrying about the safety of our troops to me. Especially considering all of the other ways they "support the troops". It astounds me that they get treated like this.
     
  14. superbovine macrumors 68030

    superbovine

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    #14
    ahhh gotcha ;)
     

Share This Page