| Warthog Territory Forums https://warthogterritory.net/forum/ |
|
| Personal Body Armour Banned https://warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=10516 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | sgtgoose1 [ 02 Apr 2006, 12:25 ] |
| Post subject: | |
What do you guys think of this? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060331/ap_ ... body_armor IMOP " They buy their own because the MILITARY CANT SUPPLY IT.Plus their charging these troops for "WEAR AND TEAR" of their equipment. <img src=newicons/anim_bs.gif border=0 align=middle> Some of the stuff their buying or their familes is the "Exact same stuff they should be getting already or EVEN BETTER. They never had a problem until Friday after the 3rd Anniversity of a "6 month Cake Walk". So why now? Unless they can show that a "Injury or Death was caused by Faulty or Cheap Body armour" then "Who cares" they'll have to pay for the other stuff anyway.How many wounded folks have been "BILLED BY DOD" for their missing or damaged Body armour? LOTS! Congressman across the country are always fighting to get it taken care of for a Wounded Vet not to pay for it. I want you Ground pounders Thoughts on this and what your heard. Goose They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, (1706 - 1790) |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 02 Apr 2006, 12:32 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I dont know the details(yet), but this seems unbelieveably stupidly damning on the surface. <img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0> <b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b> |
|
| Author: | Ice Pirate [ 03 Apr 2006, 10:28 ] |
| Post subject: | |
My personal feeling is that it's a case of the current admin getting tired of dealing with all the flack they've taken about not being able to supply their soldiers with necessary equipment. In other words, 'If they ain't getting it from us, they won't get it anywhere.' Another possibility could be some REMF officer with his head screwed up his ass, still trying to run things like he did stateside during peace time. Locked into the paridyme of "All will be uniform at all times. No exceptions." Little do people like that know that what works on paper, stateside, during peace time, never holds water once the lead starts to fly. Just another in a long line of mis judgements and mis-steps since this whole thing got started. Typical REMF mentallity! FUBAR!<img src=newicons/anim_bs.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=newicons/anim_puke.gif border=0 align=middle> "Slow is Fast - Fast is Slow" |
|
| Author: | a10stress [ 03 Apr 2006, 13:04 ] |
| Post subject: | |
|
|
|
| Author: | sgtgoose1 [ 03 Apr 2006, 20:22 ] |
| Post subject: | |
My biggest question really "Why was it OK for almost 3 YRS then all of a sudden NO!"? Your right Stress its a political football but has there been any cases that anyone knows of that personally bought BDA failed? I'm starting to think of it as "If I bought it its mine to take home, gets sold in the local Pawn shop for some "Beer" money and the wrong guys get it. Because its supposed to be against the law to own it if your not Military, law enforcement etc.... not for Joe Blow. That could be their "Reason"? Oh did I just interview for Scott McLeans job since he wont have it long <img src=newicons/anim_bs.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle> Goose They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, (1706 - 1790) |
|
| Author: | Ice Pirate [ 04 Apr 2006, 09:37 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hey Goose, Any one can buy and wear ballistic body armor. No law against it at all, and there are several out there that can stop rifle rounds at close range that are perfectly legal for any Joe Blow to own. "Slow is Fast - Fast is Slow" |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 04 Apr 2006, 11:39 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<b>Aren't the services saying that they do not want their people relying on equipment that has not been tested and certified by them?</b> All body armor is rated on a uniform scale. Class I, IA, II, IIA, III, IIIA, IV, and IVA. I have two IIIA vests with the Class IV inserts.(exact equivelant to the new 'interceptor armor' that i wear when repoing. <b>That is reasonable, considering the liability.</b> What liability? You can't sue the military for financial damages. <b>Is someone advocating that soldiers should be able to select their own equipment off the shelf, depending only on vendor brochures and testimonials?</b> I see no reason whatsoever why not. In fact, until this edict people have been donating body armor left and right, even regular civvies, but also the various manufacturers and a bunch of cop departments. <b>Has that ever been done before? Is it feasible?</b> It's been done literally millions of times. I sure carried a lot of my own self-supplied equipment, and so did a lot of the other guys too. My Spotter had his Colt Commando(forerunner of the M4) dolled up with aftermarket optics, bipod, and magazine. <b> Buying things commercially off the shelf was tried on a large scale during the Clinton Adminstration. It didn't work for Lockheed when John McCain saw a political opportunity to screw with the C-130J contract 10 years later.</b> Comparing personal gear to a major weapons system seems pretty silly to me. <b>If I were Pinnacle Armour, I would get my stuff certified to the govt spec, and then let them answer any questions when it doesn't work. On the other hand, this military body armour thing is a political football. It would be a good business decision to stay away from it, even if their stuff is superior. Yeah, stay away from it. Run away from it.</b> Ummmm, why? I'm not sure i follow any of the logic in your post Stress. <img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0> <b>"One post, One Kill".</b> |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 04 Apr 2006, 11:42 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<b>"Your right Stress its a political football but has there been any cases that anyone knows of that personally bought BDA failed?"</b> Who cares? It's better than nothing even if the stuff only stops .22LRs. <img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0> <b>"One post, One Kill".</b> |
|
| Author: | Ice Pirate [ 04 Apr 2006, 13:38 ] |
| Post subject: | |
When activated back to Active after 9-11, I was made a Security Flight Chief, yeah, I was just as shocked as you. However, I dolled up my issued gear with a lot of my own goods. I added an after market assault sling and an el-cheapo Tasco 30mm red dot sight to my issued M-16E2. I also added a Bianchi holster extender and thumb break strap to the issued holster for my M-9, and a pair of Houge rubber stocks to my issued M-9. Some of this took some fast talking to my commander to get approval, and some, like the Red Dot, I just did on my own and took the risk of reprisals. BTW: I'd taken the little Tasco out to the range and not only zeroed it to the rifle, but proved that it held zero even when removed and replaced several times. My commander agreed that it would good, but told me, "I just don't want to ever SEE it on your rifle." So, when ever I was around him, it came off and went in my pocket. He never saw it and we were both very happy. Soldiers since the dawn of warfare have been using their own gear to ensure their survival. Even during WW1 & WW2 soldiers were known to take their privatly own weapons into battle with them. I even personally know a few who did this during Viet Nam. If there is a product that you can afford that will lend itself to your survival on the battlefield, you owe it to yourself to get it and use it. This whole thing is nothing but political! "Slow is Fast - Fast is Slow" |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 04 Apr 2006, 14:42 ] |
| Post subject: | |
My unit was totally permissive with aftermarket warfighting aids. One time when i was but a young buck Pv2 while on a field problem the whole squad used some clear 30mm mags i had just gotten(they fit M-16 and Mini-14s) for my POW(personally owned weapon- in this case a Mini-14 rifle). We had the extra room in our mag pouches(we never got 7 mags for field problems, ever), so why the hell not? I bought and added a harris bi-pod and a B&L telescopic sight to my M-21. No one ever said anything to me about it. <img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0> <b>"One post, One Kill".</b> |
|
| Author: | a10stress [ 04 Apr 2006, 16:34 ] |
| Post subject: | |
|
|
|
| Author: | sgtgoose1 [ 04 Apr 2006, 17:51 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ice, I read here in this stupid state where we couldnt have "BDA" due to law enforcement, but I guess every state is differant. Snipe, I was just trying to figure out some kind of "SMART" reason they gave this order on banning Personal BDA. When we shipped-out, we were all loaded down with "Personal Gear", The Military issues the Uniforms etc.. but I had my own tools,flashlights,Blade and some other stuff and anything else I thought I could use, so I have no-problem with Folks bringing their own gear, I would go as far as "If you dont your screwing yourself" I see the news too and alot of those "Weapons" are full of "Aftermarket Upgrades, sights, forearms etc.... I think its just another "Brain Fart" from those PENCIL NECKS But If someone did get hit wearing personal BDA and it failed,I see a case that they might not grant benefits giving that reason. But I hadnt heard of one so it is a "Worthless Order" IMOP. Goose They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, (1706 - 1790) |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 04 Apr 2006, 20:18 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The only way i can see an issue is if the soldier chooses personal armor OVER issued armor. Then i can see officers making an issue of it(the body armor is part of the uni afterall). But if it's a case of aftermarket or nothing, i personally would stand down my entire squad even under threat of courts-martial if i was ordered to prevent my unarmored men from wearing their own self-supplied or donated body armor. And just for the record, the new Interceptor armor is as good as anything on the market. <img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0> <b>"One post, One Kill".</b> |
|
| Author: | Ice Pirate [ 05 Apr 2006, 17:03 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sorry to hear that Goose. I'm in CO and just tend to assume the rest of the states don't worry about body armor. You should move. Kidding. Just as in most if not all states, AP and Teflon jacketed ammo is outlawed here, but to my knowledge, anybody can have body armor. Still, it's rediculous that the brass had to do what they did. "Slow is Fast - Fast is Slow" |
|
| Author: | sgtgoose1 [ 05 Apr 2006, 17:45 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm thinking REAL HARD ABOUT IT!, Goose They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, (1706 - 1790) |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 05 Apr 2006, 18:37 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Pa is not bad goose(stay away from the two big cities though!), tons of shooters rights, and we can wear body armor. 
LOL. <img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0> <b>"One post, One Kill".</b> |
|
| Author: | HogSnort [ 05 Apr 2006, 19:08 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Damn Goose............Just when I am about ready to head to Illinois, you start this Illinois Bashing!<img src=icon_smile_blackeye.gif border=0 align=middle> Thinking we might make the move within next 1-2 months, if all goes right. House sitting empty awaiting our arrival! |
|
| Author: | a10stress [ 05 Apr 2006, 19:27 ] |
| Post subject: | |
|
|
|
| Author: | sgtgoose1 [ 05 Apr 2006, 20:09 ] |
| Post subject: | |
HOGSNORT, STAY AWAY FROM CHICAGO AT ALL COST! The rest of us "Normal" folk just have to put up with this "STUPID-ASS HOLE" by the Lake. That Cow should of did a better job back than we would be better off. I lived here my entire life (except my service time) the Southern end is Great, the middle of the STATE is great farming towns and folks plus those Big Schools (Uof I)etc.... But Chicago -------------------------------SUCKS! You pay an extra 50cents of your Gas money to pay for its CTA, the Gas is mostly TAXES and if you smoke "Hang it up" or go to the boarder states GAS right now is in the middle I'm paying $2.63 Goose They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, (1706 - 1790) |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 05 Apr 2006, 21:35 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Then you and i stand in agreement stress. I can see the Army having a hard on over using non-issue armor over issued stuff...with the obvious exception of the vietnam era ballistic filler soft vests(Ive no idea if they're even still around nowadays). Even the PASGT stuff- which will not stop rifle fire(the latest Interceptor armor does)- gives much better OVERALL protection vs handgun fire and fragments than the good Class III/IV civvie vests like i have. Civvie vests are designed for comfort first. PASGT armor is ARMOR, it covers pretty much the entire torso and neck. Fragments are really the key. Historically in the era of gunpowder shell/bomb/terrain fragments cause 85% of all casualties in war. <img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0> <b>"One post, One Kill".</b> |
|
| Author: | 30mike-mike [ 06 Apr 2006, 06:24 ] |
| Post subject: | |
What goose said, Hogsnort, stay away from Chicago/Cook county, and most of the NW, actually. Most of us "down staters" would just as soon have that county float off into the middle of Lake Michigan. The Second Amendment: America's original homeland security. Ya just can’t take life too seriously, because you aren’t going to get out of it alive anyway. |
|
| Author: | sgtgoose1 [ 06 Apr 2006, 09:05 ] |
| Post subject: | |
30MM, We can always hope and pray for that day and take Will county with it too. Goose They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, (1706 - 1790) |
|
| Author: | 30mike-mike [ 06 Apr 2006, 10:06 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yup. And I hope the current gov <img src=newicons/spit.gif border=0 align=middle> is visiting when it happens. The Second Amendment: America's original homeland security. Ya just can’t take life too seriously, because you aren’t going to get out of it alive anyway. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|