Do our Military Personnel get the best?

E

Eghad

New member
As early as July 19, 2004, according to memos originally obtained by the Army Times newspaper, the Marine Corps found "major quality assurance deficiencies within Point Blank." One month later, on August 24, 2004, the military rejected two orders from Point Blank after tests revealed that the vests did not meet safety requirements.

Faced with a severe shortage of body armor the Army decided that nine Point Blank orders that did not meet safety requirements would be sent to troops overseas anyway, according to court records obtained by DW from an unrelated Point Blank labor dispute heard in a Florida court. On May 3, 2005 Point Blank hired retired four-star Army Gen. Larry Ellis to lead the beleaguered company. On May 4, 2005, the U.S. Marine Corps recalled 5,277 Interceptor vests manufactured by Point Blank Body Armor. On July 20 Point Blank received an additional $10.1 million contract from the U.S. government. In November another18, 000 vests were recalled.

Another Interceptor body armor manufacturer, formerly known as Second Chance Body Armor, Inc., is currently under investigation by the Justice Department for fraud for knowingly selling body armor that can't stop bullets from killing its wearers. Second Chance was the leading body armor supplier to the American Armed Forces three years ago. It has since declared bankruptcy in Michigan and gone out of business.

http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?action...nKey=cmpDefense&htmlCategoryID=30&htmlId=4459
 
Well............

there is a video out there with a soldier getting shot in the chest with a 7.62 and his Interceptor vest stopped it butt cold. knocked him down but he got right back up. trying to find the link...........
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-976420.php there is the whole story. and you tell me if the body armor malfunctions or doesnt live up to what it's company's boosting.:D
I wouldn't trust it the army bought it, but it saved his life.:D
 
Here are some examples.

30-40 Krag: Nice rifle, but obsolete before it was even adopted by the military due to the Mausers of the day.

The Chauchat machinegun: No need to say anything about this one.

The Curtis Jenny: Barely airworthy, not even a good trainer airplane.

Any American WW1 fighter: We where using FRENCH planes for cryin out loud.

M4 Sherman: Oudated and outgunned before it even landed in Normandy.

Early WW2 American Torpedoes: Did a better job of poking holes in ships than exploding.

Early M-16s: Many troops killed because of rushing this weapon into production. Later variants fixed most of the problems.

M-60 Machine gun: A good gun provided it was maintained and was put together the right way. (The M-60 could be assembled wrong with disasterous results.) Many engineering faults that should have been fixed.

M-249 SAW: Maintanence and durability issues are still a problem.

Current 5.56 ammo: M855 ball does not have good terminal ballistics against tissue as compared to other 5.56 ammo types available. (Yes it still does the job most of the time.) M855 was made for use against armored targets. The short M4 barrel makes this more of a problem because the bullet does not fragment at extended ranges.
 
Don't forget about the Bradley fighting vehicle. It was almost as big a death trap as the Sherman. Everyone should rent Pentagon Wars. Great movie. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007TKND8/qid=1136618607/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4763584-1613747?n=507846&s=dvd&v=glance

We didn't have an air superiority fighter until the F-15 plus dogfight training; Something that was lost after the F-86 in Korea and probably a best reason the air victory rate in Vietnam.

But overall the troops get nice equipment. Who wouldn't like their own personal AC-130?
 
Does the U.S. millitary get the best?

NO I don't think so.Are the M-9 and M4 not enough proof.Or cast receiver M1As for sharpshooters.Our millitary is never going to have perfect equipment or personel.Does that mean that we should not fight our enemies?In our current volunteer millitary I think that we have the best folk possible for the job, far better than a conscripted {slave}millitary.[Though when I was in I heard quite a few bitch about how they just wanted to get their "college money" and go home,and this was only a weekend NG drill]We also have a "standard issue millitary",where the soldier must adjust to the equipment instead of the soldier adjusting or picking his own equipment.The folks that keep us safe can't pick the best equipment for themselves,instead the must make due with what Uncle Sugar issuses them.The most creative will cheat the system to get what they want or modify what they have.Thus many are left wanting.Though you can't blame the Army for every equipment failure.{Congress did say in the early 60s that the m16 self cleaning}That is part of why I think that the millitia system that the U.S. was built on would work much better.Small units would pick their own officers and gear.They used the tactics that worked best for them and bought their own gear.When gear and tactics worked they were celibrated,when they didn't word of failure got around fast.I think that this system would fix problems much faster than our current beaurocracy.
 
Lots of things in the military budget that the military doesn't want or need.
Construction projects at installations that are closing, new facilities for units that are deactivating. Weapons systems that do not have a conceivable mission. The list is endless.

The M-16 is not a good example to use of a flawed weapon system. As designed and purchased by it's origonal user (USAF) the weapon and ammunition were just fine. When made applicable to DoD programming(read turned over to DA as Proponent) it was subjected to 1 gripe after another because it "wasn't invented here" and went against the grain of the Ordnance Corps, who were just fielding a new weapon (M-14) that was having problems because it was designed for a concept that was unrealistic. Problems with the M-16 were the result of fielding with ammunition the weapon wasn't designed for, lack of training, lack of cleaning equipment and other support.
An original M-16 say serial No#007066 the first one I was issued performed flawlessly so long as it was fed Remington commercial ammo or GI Ball as supplied by Remington. With WCC stuff it was a total POS and had an ROF over 1000 rpm.
All the hearings did was make the Congress look involved and cover McNamara's backside, to the detriment of the GI and ultimatly two nations.
We have fielded some real decent gear, just hard to see amid the gobbledygook and pork fat.

Sam
 
As designed and purchased by it's origonal user (USAF) the weapon and ammunition were just fine.
Click to expand...

The M16 wasn't "designed" for the Air Force and then picked up by the rest of the military. They just happened to be the first government agency to actually place an order for 8,500 AR-15's in 1962. The AF renamed it M16 and ordered another 19,000 in 1963 while the Army called it XM16E1 and ordered 64,250 at the same time. The rifle was actually submitted for testing back in 1958 and underwent testing at Aberdeen in 1960. They were trying to get an Army contract.
 
Military procurement a lot of times hinges on the bias of those doing the procuring. Sometimes the military ends up with mil-spec junk and then there is the matter of contractors being the lowest bidders.
 
Got to chuckle here:D We win the wars we fight with what we have for equipment and even if it ain't the best it is still beating our enemies:) You guys amaze me. Who is doing better than we are?

The vest sent to our troops are flack vest with armour PLATE in the front and back. The rest of the vest is made to stop blast fragments. Second chance sent some bad aramic fibers to the military that didn't stop the fragments as to contract but the steel plates stop the bullets just fine. The troops are not totaly un protected and yes we can do better but our enemies are still losing just the same.

Which would you rather have a M-4 or an AK?

25
 
No offence model 25, but beating an Arab army is not much of a challenge. There are issues with their culture that make an effective modern military difficult. We lost to the Vietnamese, the Serbs said FU to us and continued their genocide as we bombed Kosovo. They left once it was convenient. The Somalis got a few lucky hits on us because we where not allowed to use armor and C-130's. They did darn good for spray-and-pray shooting. We get beaten by Canadians in ASW and Swedish subs get within firing range of our carriers in military exercises.

The Israelis have kicked the tar out of the Arabs plenty of times dispite being outnumbered and outgunned. (Now the Arabs just try and win by sending teens with C4 straped to their chest into Israel.) Iran held its own against Iraq dispite not being in any condition to fight after the revolution.
 
Does the military have the best of everything? Of course not. Why? Taxpayers aren't willing to support such expenses.

Could the military have better things than they do now without breaking the bank? Probably, but you have to keep in mind that whether or not the military has the best or has everything needed to be reasonably the best is an ongoing concern for every military.

No doubt there are deficiencies, but the troops we put in the field now are tremendously better off than troops put in the field as recent as a few decades ago and even better off than those who served in Desert Storm.

Sure, some soldiers are being killed because they are being shot in areas not covered by hard armor. The OTV Interceptor is composed of hard armor plates on the front and back with full torso coverage by IIIa soft armor. The armor plates will and so stop rifle rounds. The soft armor will stop pistol rounds. Both stop shrapnel. The reason there is soft armor is that hard armor does not flex too well and so the vest is composed of both, providing pistol and frag protection of the torso where the hard armor won't work.

There is a major disconnect in the article between the concepts of quality control and armor capabilities. The soldiers killed from suffering torso shots were killed because those shots impacted areas not covered with hard armor. So the author is correct that we could save more lives with better coverage, but then we would have soldiers in IABTs (Individual Armored Battle Tanks).

The article notes vests were recalled because of quality control, but does not describe how the quality control issues may have cost soldiers their lives. Remember that the soldiers are getting killed by rifle fire penetrating the vests in places where there is no hard armor. That isn't a QC problem.

The article points out that Second Chance is a supplier of OTVs. I did not know this. Anyway, the article notes that Second Chance filed for bankruptcy after quality control issues with some of their vests that failed and Second Chance had been aware of the problem. This is true, but the ballistic material used in those cases was zylon and zylon is not what is being used in OTV armor.

The article incorrectly notes that second chance has now gone out of business after filing bankruptcy. Second Chance is not out of business. They were bought out, but they are still producing vests under the Second Chance name. http://www.secondchance.com/news.asp?action=article&newsID=88

This seems skewed...
Another Interceptor body armor manufacturer, formerly known as Second Chance Body Armor, Inc., is currently under investigation by the Justice Department for fraud for knowingly selling body armor that can't stop bullets from killing its wearers. Second Chance was the leading body armor supplier to the American Armed Forces three years ago. It has since declared bankruptcy in Michigan and gone out of business.
Click to expand...
 
There is never as much fat or waste in any budget as you folks like to imagine. After all, salaries and pensions take up a lot up front that has to be paid even if no soldier leaves the barracks.

From what I've read over the years, everyone seems to think the other guy has better stuff or what we used to have is better than what we have now. Given that every generation thinks that, what we are using now must then be the worst conceivable gear any army every went to the field with. On the other hand, it was an astronaut who said something about sitting on top of a rocket with a 100,000 parts, all made by the lowest bidder.

Winning wars is not entirely a matter of equipment and everyone should realize that. No other army every beat us in Vietnam or anywhere in the Middle East. Everyone knows the United States Army and Marines outclass everyone. There is no reason we couldn't stay anywhere if we wanted to. But that means that the enemies' object won't be to beat us on the battlefield, only to change our mind about staying. It doesn't matter what rifle is being used.
 
No offence model 25, but beating an Arab army is not much of a challenge.

It is just conversation and there is no way to take offense on the net. When we first took on Sadam in Gulf war I he had the worlds fourth biggest army. We destroyed him in less than 28 days.

We lost to the Vietnamese,

We never lost , we cut and run because of politics. Our troops never lost a battle that we intended to win.

the Serbs said FU to us and continued their genocide as we bombed Kosovo.

Bill Clinton didn't have the nerve for a ground war and fought it a 15,000 feet. He didn't want to win it just cripple the Serbs power.

The reality is that we have the best armed forces at this time in the world. The Chicoms are going to improve to the point that confrontation will be very exspensive and our stuff is getting old so future wise you may be right but right now we are the best.

25
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top