personal body armor

[lucero1148]

How will pesonal body armor be modeled in cmsf? Is there a pysch boost to troops using it? And just how heavily armored are individual soldier's(US)when they go out on operations? If an armored soldier is hit but not wounded does he get up immediately or after a few minutes (stunned)?

Watching cnn troops seem to have diffeerent levels of body armor. Why is that? I though the US Army supplies everything on a standardized basis or is this a wrong assumption?

Patrick

[vincere]

Watching cnn troops seem to have diffeerent levels of body armor. Why is that? I though the US Army supplies everything on a standardized basis or is this a wrong assumption?

There's quite a few internet articles saying that the Iraq experience is providing a need to get the best pragmatic, effective gear to troops quickly has led to a pentagon rethink on funding. This AFAIK is increasing pushing access to funds to lower formations as they are in some ways better able to judge what they need and what works. This idea has been around for years with the way special forces receive funds; now regular units are getting their own funding for procurement.

Fueling this trend is the fact that many regular soldiers cound see special forces kit that worked, and thought they should have access to it to. Also the internet has aided small unit and individual equipment purchases. Individual purchases has also fueled the trend.

One interesting development of this that has the Air Force on the back foot is reports that battalions are buying their own UAVs because of the slow response times of the airforce. If this trend was to continue, adding armed UAVs, this could seriously encroach on Air Force roles.

[Midnight Warrior]

Here is an interesting link on body armor. There is a news video clip there of a soldier that was shot by a sniper and (happily) the body armor saved his life.

Web page on body armor

[Bigduke6]

Here's an article in Christian Science Monitor where an embedded reporter talks with grunts from the 82nd Airborne about body armor, and its utility in hunting Taliban.

According to the report, the dushmani are now taunting the airborne troopers by radio, since both sides know U.S. soldiers can't climb hills much faster than snail-pace. The paratroopers blame body armor and a command attitude to prevent friendly casualties at all costs, and at least some of them think the whole exercise is close to a waste of time.

Read it quick, CSM makes its articles available for a week or so after printing, and then you have to pay for them.

http://search.csmonitor.com/search_content/1013/p04s01-wosc.html

FYI, CSM generally leans to the right, and they have supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq from the outset.

[Denwad]

waste of time?

the video of the soldier taking a 7.62x54r to the chest, getting back up and taking cover is proof enough that it works just fine

doesn't weight THAT much, jeeze.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Denwad:

waste of time?

the video of the soldier taking a 7.62x54r to the chest, getting back up and taking cover is proof enough that it works just fine

doesn't weight THAT much, jeeze.

Heh.. have you ever worn it out in the desert with all that other crap you have to carry? 20lbs may not seem like a lot, but add the other 40-60 pounds of gear and water you've got and you're sucking fast. Nevermind trying to climb a mountain with it.

[Midnight Warrior]

It seems like it is the time honored trade of mobility verses protection. You cn be light and fast or heavy and slow. It applies to all types of weapon systems. F-16's verses A-10's to body armor. And those systems that are both like US fast battleships in WWII tend to be high tech and pricey which leads to a quantity vesres quality argument.

I wonder in the CM:SF context how this will be played out? I would imagine that the speed a leg unit moves would be a function of how nuch stuff they are toting around. On the other hand the ability for the enemy to out run our forces on sound contacts from noisy Chinucks and such may be above the scale of CM:SF (other than indirectly affecting the sceanrio layouts).

Based on what CMx1 has such as sound contacts tt does seem that CM:SF would have the mechanics to model someof these effects. Stryker will be harder to hear verses Bradely's and Abrams and be able to move faster and thus sneak up on units quiter and faster. But will the small maps and short time scales allow for these effcts to make a lot of difference. Also, will these effects be a pronounced in a non counter insurgeny type operation? Perhaps that is the rub ..in the final analysis, asymmetric warfare = counter insurgeny?

Once again it will be realy interesting to see how BFC handles all these things.

[vincere]

It seems like it is the time honored trade of mobility verses protection. You cn be light and fast or heavy and slow. It applies to all types of weapon systems. F-16's verses A-10's to body armor. And those systems that are both like US fast battleships in WWII tend to be high tech and pricey which leads to a quantity vesres quality argument.

I wonder in the CM:SF context how this will be played out? I would imagine that the speed a leg unit moves would be a function of how nuch stuff they are toting around.

I'd like the choice of either having troops wear the armour or not. Either at the higher level, say before a battle and applicable to whole force or platoons, or at lower level where squads/teams could ditch/don the armour.

That way we could play with the protection vs mobility issue and vary to circumstances.

[Bigduke6]

Well, according to the article the U.S. airborne infantrymen are pissed because the Taliban are so sure they can evade U.S. troops, they taunt them on the radio.

An earlier article in the series says some of the 82nd troopers were carrying packs close to 100 lbs. Try and chase down an Afridi teenager carrying a Kalashnikov and wearing sandals, with that kind of load on your back.

It was the same deal in Vietnam with flak vests. The most effective Vietnamese weapon was mortar and rocket fragments, and flank vests were great at keeping that stuff out. As I understand it the Marines especially made it a point of discipline to keep their troops in the flak vests, and there is no question that policy reduced U.S. casualties.

Of course, it also contributed to the Vietnamese impression that U.S. combat units were big, clumsy, and easy to evade.

I'm not picking on Americans, just overloaded infantry. Winston Churchill more than a century ago questioned the wisdom of sending heavy infantry carrying all the stuff a first world army needs to make itself superior, to chase down Afghan insurgents.

So I would hope CMSF would make the Syrian infantry fleet of foot, and the Styker dismounts more on the molasses side.

[BulletRat]

Try and chase down an Afridi teenager carrying a Kalashnikov and wearing sandals, with that kind of load on your back.

Chase down? One bullet and that sucker aint going no-where...

[acrashb]

Originally posted by BulletRat:

Chase down? One bullet and that sucker aint going no-where...

Not as in 'running after the fleeing bad guy', but as in move-to-contact. The bad guy can reposition (tactically) more quickly.

And it takes more than one bullet. At last count, about 250,000. Which is much better than WWII.

[Speedy]

You have to wonder how much of the gear individual soldiers are humping around is really necessary?

Besides bodyarmour, weapon, ammunition, water, first aid gear, nvg? surely most other stuff can be hauled around in troop vehicles or suppled to them via helicopter as required.

[Kurtz]

But take a look at Blackhawk Down for the consequences of leaving all your "nice-to-have" items at the base.

[M1A1TC]

Many soldiers are spending thousands of dollars on body armor that actually works. Many modify existing gear (Not the issue stuff). If you look at many different photos of soldiers over there, you will see a variety of armor.

Here is a good site to find info on latest gear www.lightfighter.com

[SD Smack]

Hey Speedy,

Dont forget about commo gear and all the batteries required to run everything the US Military uses. Flash lights, PEQ-2, nods, radios, GPS, etc, etc.

"light Infantry" is some what of an oxymoron, as they have to carry everything with them. Compare that to Mech Infantry who can toss all their extra stuff on their track.

[Speedy]

The Blackhawk Down fiasco was pretty much brought about by poor planning and leadership. The commanding officer changing the nature of the mission half way through it just to recover 2? dead, 1? seriously wounded helicopter crewmen led to the majority of the casualties.

[Kurtz]

Yeah, I was just thinking of the scene in the movie where the Delta Force (?) guy packs everything and the regular guys leave most of their stuff behind, because "it's only going to be a short raid".

Having to much stuff in your vehicle reduces your flexibility, but it's of course dependent on the tactical situation. But you'll probably need to carry more in "hot" situations. If the mission is a peace-keeping patrol, you don't not need to carry as much as when assualting a position and might encounter armoured vehicles.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Speedy:

The Blackhawk Down fiasco was pretty much brought about by poor planning and leadership. The commanding officer changing the nature of the mission half way through it just to recover 2? dead, 1? seriously wounded helicopter crewmen led to the majority of the casualties.

"Just" to recover the dead and wounded?

You don't leave them behind. Recovering them isn't a change of mission - it's a part of the mission.

BHD went bad because a helicopter was shot down (and then another) - not because the primary mission was changed. If you recall, they got the guys they were after and they brought them back.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, this is an issue of mobility vs. protection. For US forces protection is contstantly put head of mobility. The increasing personal protection gear is just one example. You can also look at things like the Stryker, which lost quite a bit of its original strategic capabilities, and some tactical, because of the slat armor designed to defeat RPG hits.

Personally, it is the right way to go. The public in the US is already disapointed with the results in Iraq and is increasingly upset with the rising casualties. If those guys had no body armor, slat armor, uparmored Humvees, improvised gun trucks, etc... what would the personnel and equipment losses be today? Answer... vastly higher. I'd guess around 6,000 KIA and 20,000 WIA, a few hundred Strykers eliminated (i.e. a whole Brigade), and other vehicle losses in the low thousands.

So for you guys wondering if the sacrifice of mobility is worth it... think about where we would be right now without the protection? Think of how long it would have taken 60% of the US public to view the war negatively and drop confidence in Bush's handling of it down to 30% range? Answer... months and not years.

There will be no option in CM:SF to go without body armor on soldiers. Sorry, but that isn't a realistic option available to low level commanders in the field these days. In fact, the regulations about wearing of body armor were changed to increase usage. Basically, if you aren't on base you are supposed to be wearing body armor. Or something like that!

Steve

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Speedy:

You have to wonder how much of the gear individual soldiers are humping around is really necessary?

Besides bodyarmour, weapon, ammunition, water, first aid gear, nvg? surely most other stuff can be hauled around in troop vehicles or suppled to them via helicopter as required.

That alone is about 60 lbs.

Body armor - 20-25lbs

Helmet - 2lbs or so

Rifle with gadgets - 10-15 lbs (add 10+ extra pounds for SAWs or MGs)

Ammo - about a pound per 30-round magazine. I always had 12 with me. When I was an M60 gunner I carried 500 rounds, give or take, in addition to the gun itself (23lbs).

Water - in the desert you'll probably have a 2-qt or two with you in addition to your normal canteens. Figure maybe 8-10lbs. Substitute a camelback and you may only carry about 5lbs.

First aid. A combat lifesaver probably has a bag of about 5lbs worth of stuff. Usually one combat lifesaver per fire team.

NVG - maybe 1-2lbs or so depending on the type.

So right now we're at 61lbs for a rifleman with all that gear and a camelback (but no canteens). Add onto that the 5-7lbs of uniform. Nearly 70lbs just for essential gear for a rifleman.

Now, add in the extras or specialty gear:

MREs - often carried in assault packs. 2lbs ea.

Extra ammo - figure 5lbs per 50 rounds of 7.62mm for the M240. I think the SAW 200 round boxes are about 8lbs. 60mm mortar rounds are maybe 5 pounds, but they're usually carried in packs of three. Figure 17lbs with packing materiel.

Hand grenades - 1lb ea

M203 vest - 24 rounds, maybe 20lbs total.

Assistant M240 gunners. These guys get screwed. Usually carry, in addition to the above, 4-600 rounds of 7.62 ammo. Spare barrel bag with accessories - 10lbs. M240 tripod - 20-30lbs.

SINCGARS radio - maybe 20lbs.

"Light" infantrymen, like I was, also carry a rucksack full of stuff (though not in a firefight). Things like extra uniforms and socks, sleeping bag, extra food, ammo and water. Easily can top 100lbs in the ruck.

You can see how this stuff adds up.

[Drusus]

And when all this gets wet you can see a on the soldiers face.

[cassh]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish

"Just" to recover the dead and wounded?

You don't leave them behind. Recovering them isn't a change of mission - it's a part of the mission.

I think this is a question of doctrine.

In US doctrine this principle is sacrosanct.

In other armies a different view is often taken - especially when the men are known to be dead.

Historically many countries' bury their soldier in foreign fields where they fall - therefore recovery of a body, whilst desirable, is not viewed to be worth the life of another soldier.

Additionally although distasteful, the wounded have often been sacrificed to ensure the mission was accomplished if time/resources did not allow proper evacuation, medical attention or duty of care.

This may seem cold-blooded but it is also shows sangfroid [sic]!

[Bigduke6]

acrashb - Heheheh. Thanks

M1A1Tankcommander - Fair comment, but remember the overwhelming bulk of the U.S. force in Iraq is vehicle-riding and for practical purposes does little or no infantry humping. I don't count setting up a hasty perimeter or dismounting the machine gun.

Ok, here's comes an essay, if you don't have time to read this you're warned.

I'm talking about riflemen and grenadiers going into a region their vehicles can't easily go, and trying to kill people hiding there who want to kill you. Finding, attacking and digging the bad guys out, not just defending until air or the combat arms reaction force shows up. Where your ability to perform fire and movement drills have a great deal to do with whether you become a target, or not. After a certain point, too much crap on your back becomes a liability, once you get out of your army car.

The more the infantry finds itself in situations where it has to hump, the less it can afford to carry every single bell and whistle that would be nice to have.

Unfortunately, in militaries able to pick and choose equipment for missions, a real danger exists that the people making the decisions for the mission load-out, are not people who walk for a living. There is big pressure by brass doing the planning to tell the infantry to carry just one more thing, as if the infantry doesn't carry it and the thing is wanted, it will be the staff planner's career that's in trouble.

In the U.S. military where even a few casualties produce hyper-reaction by the people paying for it all (the civilian Americans), it is not so easy to send agile infantry without body armor into combat. This is a real, although certainly far from unsurmountable, military disadvantage faced by U.S. forces for more than a century.

The only solution that has worked in first-world armies has been senior officers with lots of first-hand experience as infantrymen, and who as army commanders were absolutely dedicated to keeping their infantrymen lightly loaded enough to fight other infantry. As modern armies focus on technology, this type of officer is rare. Montgomery and Slim were examples from WW2. Ridgeway is the obvious Korean War case.

I would say that neither Westmoreland nor van Fleet managed to make that leap in Vietnam, and so far, I think it is fair to say no U.S. post-Vietnam in a very senior position has come down on the side of truly agile infantry.

In the case of Westy and van Fleet, I think it is no coincidence that both brought decades of mechanized warfare experience, especially in Europe during WW2, to their jobs. Slim, by comparison, cut his military teeth in a Ghurkha regiment on the border between Afghanistan and modern Pakistan.

Which brings me to the modern Afghanistan case. The mountaineers are in the, well, mountains, and the only way the Americans can get to them, practically, is via an intelligence tip off. But of course the people feeding the Americans intelligence, are happy to sell information to the Taliban. So how to deal with those annoying tribesmen?

If the mission is rooting the hostile tribesmen out of the rough terrain, every extra piece of equipment you carry in is going to slow your boys down. Has any one senior in the U.S. command forced a decision "lighten the infantry up, pay the price in casualties, but let's go after these tribesmen?" Maybe, but not senior enough.

The tribesmen are still in the hills laughing, while the Americans are in the valleys maintaining their equipment, wearing their body armor, and complaining about how the tribesmen are afraid to fight.

Who is winning in this picture? Hint: The side with the more agile "infantry".

History is replete with examples of disasters due to overloaded infantry - drownings in Flanders mud perhaps being the classic. Another one is the Chinese intervention into Korea, where road-bound U.N. forces found out what happens when you build your army around vehicles, and spot the opposition free use of the tough terrain.

Body armor is the continuation of a historical trend. It is rare, when higher command has an opportunity to overload the infantry to the point that it cannot function as infantry, that higher command disciplines itself enough to keep the infantry mobile.

If any one is interested I recommend On Infantry by John English. (A Kaynuck, BTW). He spells it out: One of infantry's key abilities is the ability to move through any terrain to get at the enemy, and if you undermine that ability, you create more and more useless infantry.

Which is not to say U.S. infantry would be useless in a Syria scenario. U.S. infantry, God bless it, is probably the best-trained first-world infantry on the planet today.

Nor is this to say that body armor does not save lives. Of course it does.

My point is, if you load down the infantry you're going to pay a price. If your infantry goes into a fight too heavily loaded, against more agile infantry able to take advantage of the weakness, you can have problems - even if those problems, ultimately, are of your own making.

[GSX]

Which is not to say U.S. infantry would be useless in a Syria scenario. U.S. infantry, God bless it, is probably the best-trained first-world infantry on the planet today.

Glad you said probably, as some Isrealis, Brits Aussies and New Zealanders for one will argue with that. Still the more elite formations are good, about the same quality as an Aussie regular battalion.

Of course the Brits will be in Afghanistan next year, cue the Gurkhas in their element. Maybe it will be a diffrent game then.

But as someone who has lugged all that kit aorund as well, I definately know where your coming from.

[flamingknives]

Well, Gurkhas are naturally bullet-resistant and have been known to fly on occasion, so it's not really a fair comparison.