By RYAN LENZ, Associated Press Writer Soldiers headed for Iraq (news - web sites) are still buying their own body armor — and in many cases, their families are buying it for them — despite assurances from the military that the gear will be in hand before they're in harm's way. Body armor distributors have received steady inquiries from soldiers and families about purchasing the gear, which can cost several thousand dollars. Though the military has advised them not to rely on third-party suppliers, many soldiers say they want it before they deploy. Last October, it was reported that nearly one-quarter of American troops serving in Iraq did not have ceramic plated body armor, which can stop bullets fired from assault rifles and shrapnel. The military says the shortfall is over and soldiers who do not yet have the armor soon will. But many want to avoid the risk. "What we hear from soldiers is that they are told that they are going to get body armor just before they leave or just after they get there. But they don't want to take a chance," said Nick Taylor, owner of Bulletproofme.com, an online distributor of body armor in Austin, Texas. Inquiries rise and fall with the rate of deployments, fueled by stories of units falling under attack as little as a day after being issued body armor. Whether they are true, the stories are prompting families to think about buying the equipment, Taylor said. Reliance Armor in Cincinnati, which makes armored vests for soldiers and police, has nearly doubled in size as a result of the shortage. "We're getting people locally who are deployed National Guard and parents, specifically, coming in and buying," said Don Budke, the company's vice president of sales. "The military people don't want to advertise the fact that there are people doing this on their own." Dan Britt paid about $1,400 for body armor for his son, a medic stationed in Kuwait who had orders to move into Baghdad. He recently heard his son received it. "In war, as we've learned through all our history, who gets killed and who doesn't is just happenstance," said the father from Hamilton, Ohio. "But if I can raise the odds, then I'll feel better." Those that need the armor most are already certain to have it, said Army spokesman Maj. Gary Tallman, and families should not buy the equipment. "What we have told family members who have contacted us is that the Army cannot attest to the safety or the level of protection of body armor purchased rather than issued for a soldier," Tallman said. The Defense Department says it has contracted with one manufacturer for its armor. Point Blank Body Armor, which produces the Interceptor brand, has all but stopped selling to the public. Nancy Durst recently learned that her husband, a soldier with an Army reserve unit from Maine serving in Iraq, spent four months without body armor. She said she would have bought armor for her husband had vests not been cycled into his unit. Even if her husband now has body armor, Durst said she was angry he was without it at any time. Her husband also has told her that reservists have not been given the same equipment as active duty soldiers. "They're so sick of being treated as second-class soldiers," she said. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who serves on the Armed Services subcommittee, said she knows soldiers who were told by the military to buy body armor before leaving, rather than risk arriving with nothing but their shirts. "We lagged far behind in making sure that our soldiers who are performing very difficult and dangerous missions had protective equipment," she said. A bill being considered in Congress would reimburse families who bought body armor before the Army asked for increased production to bridge the gap between soldiers who had armor and those that did not. Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who has talked with hundreds of families who bought body armor for soldiers in Iraq, said the military lost the trust of soldiers' families. In that regard, it is not surprising that families bought body armor in spite of what military advised, he said. "There still is a lingering level of mistrust with some families as to whether there are people thinking about the best equipment and needs of their loved ones," Turley said. "No one that I know of has been truly held accountable." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../ap/20040326/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_body_armor_1
Yeah a neighbor of mine got calle dup to Africa at teh first of January and i was surprised how much stuff of hies own he took over. Body armor, he took over his own boots (I think the army may have supplied a pair but he didn't like them), and he bought himself some little GPS system (in case he got lost). Especially with the body armor I expected that to be standard issue to all soldiers.
Hey, that tax cut for the rich has to come out of someone's pockets. TANSTAAFL. Thanks for the $12,000 check, voodoo economics.
No one is buying their own body armor. Total myth. There are only two authorized (in the Army, at least - Marines have another set authorized as well) sets of body armor to be had, and only one of them actually works. The other is available for personal purchase. What you see everyone wearing in Iraq is IBA (Interceptor Body Armor - google it and look it up). It is an issue item, not for sale to civilians or on a personal basis. Point Blank only does military contracts, and every set has a NSN (National Stock Number) that is given for military issue at the point of manufacture. You will find it extremely difficult to buy a set of this stuff legally for your own personal protection. You will find it impossible to bulls*it your CO about it, when he asks why you're the only one who has the good stuff. The other authorized set is called PASGT (Personal Armor System - Ground Troop), and it's worthless. I wore a set to work for 11 months, and I still can't figure out why. It won't stop a bullet, it won't stop a blade, it might stop shrapnel, it is really difficult to aim a weapon while wearing it, and it severely limits mobility (hard to run in)... It is commercially available now, but no one with half of a brain would buy a set and wear it to Iraq. This is the stuff that no one wants to wear. I would personally rather go unarmored, as would most everyone else who's been forced by SOP to wear it. The IBA, on the other hand, is a dream. Light, maneuverable, effective - if troops had no equivalent issue armor and had the opportunity to personally purchase IBA, then they would have gone out and bought their own in droves... But they did not need to. Another myth - that the troops in Iraq didn't have IBA. They did. Pretty much all of them - the PASGTs were generally only issued to REMFs, and even then extremely sparingly. In short, the world has never seen a force as well armored as the one that participated (and still is) in OIF.And no one paid for their own armor. (Unless they were Special Forces and wanted to go with a Paraclete RAV, which is considered super-high-speed, and not SOP for regular troops - not wearable). Other gear, though - troops bought tons of their own sh*t. Rucks and assault packs, LBVs and RACKs, pockets, sleep systems, Gerbers, you name it. Actually, pretty much everything short of weapons, armor, NODs/NVGs, and uniforms, troops bought quite a bit of their own gear. The army has always issued crap 2nd and 3rd line gear. Feel free to write your congressman to try and chance that, I'd appreciate it. I personally have spent over $4,000 on various pieces for myself, and would rather have saved that money.
Outrageous!!! Hey, glad you're back around, treeman. Hope you've been well. So all the stories of some of our people buying their own armor aren't true? Good. Then they have extra dough to get all the other stuff you mentioned. (which is rediculous. It's not like you guys have the money lying around) What a week. We have a Doc Rocket thread and a LHutz post in the GARM and treeman has returned from an extended vacation. Some of us were posting that you and a couple of others were missed... the opposition has not always been up to snuff recently. (IMHO, of course. basso would start 6 threads explaining why this wasn't true if I didn't include the qualifier)
I've got other priorities now (little Colin has taken up quite a chunk of my life, which I gladly relinquish, as has the career), but I'm still here... Actually, I haven't even checked the BBS for months, I've been so busy. But tonight I found a little spare time and got curious... No, nobody is buying their own armor (nobody who's sane, at least, and is not a millionaire with connections with Point Blank, and who doesn't have a CO who's smoking crack and throwing SOP out the window). We are all (well, most of us, those of us who actually care about having good gear) buying our own tactical gear, though. Not really big-ticket items, though that's a matter of perspective, but the little things - they add up. A $200 Rucksack that will actually hold your 90lbs. $90 for modular magazine pockets that offer quicker reaction times when reloading. $70 Thigh/leg rigs for sidearms. $280 for a high-speed GPS/mapping reciever, since the PLGRs (military GPS's) are too bulky and too scarce. $150 for a bivy shelter, and another $150 for an ultra-lightweight sleeping bag (weight is very important). $5 for a compact pillow... This crap adds up. And think about what it takes to live in the field for a month, two, three... OK, for a civilian - what would you buy if you had to go camping for a month? And after that camping trip, you had to stay in a crappy motel with three other guys for another nine months? With no Wal-Marts, Kmarts, Albertsons, Sears, etc? You spend some dough before you go. The Army provides the armor, weapons, night vision, etc - all of the really high-ticket items, they cover. And it's high-quality stuff. But the little stuff is pretty much up to you, because of their friggen negligence. It adds up, and it pisses the troops off. Morale is actually still pretty high in spite of it, but it would be so much better if they's just pay attention to detail. And by "they" I mean both Congress and the Administration, because it is their joint responsibility to look after the troops. And if the troops are having to buy their own crap just to stay happy... Hell, not even happy - functional in some cases - then somebody is not sticking a fine enough toothed comb into the budgeting and acquisition process. (ready for another defense budget increase?)
I don't mind paying more taxes if there's a good reason to do it, whether it's for adequate schools and services here in Texas or making sure our troops have what they need. I just want the money spent for something worthwhile. And I don't want rich people getting constant tax breaks when we're in the middle of a war... whether you think the war was a grand idea or not. I can't remember the last time a President did that. I think Bush may be the first. Of course, you know what I think of him anyway.
I agree with you up to the part about not minding paying taxes for schools or troops or whatever, as long as it's being used well... I will gladly pay an extra buck-fifty (or fifty bucks) a year to see that something important such as that gets funded. Course I realize that when the rich folks have more money to spend they're gonna spend it largely by investment, which creates jobs and sends a little coin our poor-ass way... Differing philosophies on economics are not going to be solved here (ever, BTW ). But it's nice to know that you're willing to shell a few extra bucks towards the troops to make the situation better for them. That's truly good to know, and it says a lot about your character. I wasn't kidding when I said to write your congressman. I really do think that the best way to keep a potent force is to keep a motivated force, that the best way to keep a motivated force is to keep a happy force, and that the best way to do that is to pay for the little sh*t that is apparently too unimportant for Congress - and the Admin - to care about. It all goes back to that little "If only I could have more money to spend on my family and the crap that I want, instead of the crap that I have to get/pay for - like TAXES - my life would be so much easier..." argument
Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who has talked with hundreds of families who bought body armor for soldiers in Iraq, said the military lost the trust of soldiers' families. B]"We're getting people locally who are deployed National Guard and parents, specifically, coming in and buying," said Don Budke, the company's vice president of sales. "The military people don't want to advertise the fact that there are people doing this on their own."[/B] Oh well I guess this can't be true as treeman said it wasn't. Good thing we got that straightened out. Of course he still believe that there are a bunch of wmd around. Silly David Kay and the rest.
Thanks for the insights Treeman. I am really suprised to hear that you guys spend some money (and considerable large amounts for that matter) out of your private pockets for certain personal gears. When I saw first saw the headline I ignored it as first because I thought it was ridiculous to be even true. Now what I will like know now is this - do you guys get tax relief or reimbursement for this out of pocket "business" expenses like certain tax payers get money back for some categories of expenses? Also I would like to know if your families "suffer" financially as a result of the extra money taken away from other needs they could have met or is the Fed Gov. paying you guys "doctors money" (i.e. how much is your monthly salary)?
Treeman I have always agreed with you. I didn't read the rest of your essay but you are wrong. Like I said around Christmas I was in my neighbors house and he had all his gear layed out (going thru his checklist). He told me he had bought his body armor nad had his own boots to take over. So it's not a myth. Maybe not alot of soldiers have to do it but I can guarantee 1 did.
PS - Like I mentioned originally he was going to Africa not Iraq or Afganistan so maybe that makes a difference.
Why did you spend all that money on gear if you weren't going into combat? Is it just one of those unspoken rules that you have to get it all?
treeman, could it be that the "pros from Dover" in the professional military are getting the body armor, but it's some of the Guardsmen and reservists that aren't? Have you had much feedback on their equipment issues? With such a large reserve deployment, maybe that's what we're talking about here. Oh, and kids are great, aren't they? Before you know it, he'll be old enough to really run amok with.
My nephew is in the 82nd Airborne and just returned from Baghdad a month or so ago. I manage his trust fund and before he shipped out, I had to send him money to buy body armor and, believe it or not, desert camouflage.
