Enough body armour?

#1
It just came to mind; would there be enough body armour for our troops if say we had to deploy large quantities of soldiers for some reason?
 

Schaden

On ROPS
On ROPs
Book Reviewer
#5
How about the question of whether the amount of body armour used at the moment is an actual hinderance in the field or not and less not more is the answer?

So many questions!!
 
#8
We've enough to burn.
 
#10
I suspect it depends how it was procured. Large amounts of kit currently used in Afghanistan was bought via the Urgent Operational Requirements process. This only allows enough to be bought for the troops in theatre plus a training pool. When the operation is complete it is supposed to be got rid of although there is currently a series of studies to decide which items should be brought into the 'core' programme.

In the particular case of body armour, I doubt there would be sufficient Osprey to equip the whole Army.
 
#11
How about the question of whether the amount of body armour used at the moment is an actual hinderance in the field or not and less not more is the answer?

So many questions!!
definately the real question.
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
#12
How about the question of whether the amount of body armour used at the moment is an actual hinderance in the field or not and less not more is the answer?

So many questions!!
This has been discussed before and a lot of posters advocated wearing less body armour and using being able to move faster and be more agile as a way to avoid getting greased.
 

Schaden

On ROPS
On ROPs
Book Reviewer
#13
You just have to look at an infantry training vid - say of infantry skirmishing up to a
Trench system and then clearing the trenches and compare
The speed they can move at and their use of cover while doing
It then look at what happens now to have serious doubts as to whether
Current armour is a good idea.
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
#14
You just have to look at an infantry training vid - say of infantry skirmishing up to a
Trench system and then clearing the trenches and compare
The speed they can move at and their use of cover while doing
It then look at what happens now to have serious doubts as to whether
Current armour is a good idea.
I am of the opinion that less is definately more, perhaps not bin body armour all together but maybe just a plate carrier, perhaps worn over ECBA to provide some protection from frag. This was a solution used some blokes from my unit on Herrick 6 and they hand no problems and were probably a lot more agile, especially when it came to climbing in and out of ditches or over walls. I've not used the new osprey so couldn't comment on how that affects agility/speed of movement.

While looking at it from a soldiers point of view carrying no/less body armour would seriously reduce the weight carried on patrol and would help improve performance as people would not get fatigued as quickly and would therefore be able to operate better in a contact. From a commander/politician/family point of view the minute someone was killed or seriously injured and they weren't wearing body armour it would be career/political suicide for the people who allowed it, devastating for the family as they would most likely end up in long protracted court cases to try and put blame for their loved ones death on the MOD for not making them wear body armour. The only people who would benefit would be the papers.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top