Before deploying to Iraq in 2003 with the First Infantry Division, I designed the Ballistic Combat Uniform (BCU).

It is Patent Pending and will provide Soldiers and Marines with the ability to quickly insert lightweight, flexible ballistic panels into their respective uniforms.

While in Iraq, many fellow Soldiers were impressed with the BCU and its lifesaving characteristics.

As an example, the Army Combat Uniform has knee and elbow pockets to accept foam pads. Instead of foam, my Shrapnel Shield (TM) ballistic pads weigh only 5 ounces each, are 5" x 8", and are designed to stop a .357 Magnum bullet.

The BCU provides protection to areas of the body that ballistic vests do not. They include the upper arms, elbows, hips, lower back, thighs, knees, and shins.

With all ballistic panels inserted, the Ballistic Combat Uniform adds less than 5 pounds to the weight.

It enables Leaders and subordinates to quickly increase or decrease the level of protection based on mission requirements, weather, and mobility issues.

I plan on selling the Ballistic Combat Uniform in the near future as I believe it will save lives, reduce serious injuries, and will prove practical enough to be worn in combat.

Please visit www.tacarm.com for further details.

Sincerly,

Matt Sonner

Posted by: Matthew A. Sonner at May 31, 2006 08:02 PM

I'm surprised nanotech hasnt been used for body armor yet. They're already able to mass produce carbon sheets made of nanotubes stronger and lighter than any of the armor even used on current light armor vehicles.

I'd tell them to suck it up too though, if it came to weight vs protection. It's only a matter of time before they'll get issued some light weight nanogear.

Posted by: bryan at January 22, 2006 10:50 PM

Good Morning Charles,

The shoulder armor and roll over, I haven't heard that before. If it's a concern then the decision has to be made of which is the biggest threat to the gunner, IED's or vehicle roll over. Again thats a decision that should be made at the troop level not in the Pentagon.

One advantage that body armor does provide to vehicle crew people who must ride in an open hatch is that it pads their ribs from the bouncing around that comes with the job. It doesn't take long for a bruse belt to form around your body where you make contact with the weapon ring.

Again, my point was and still is, there is a lot more for the Sec. of the Army to worry about then the decisions about who, what and when to use body armoe in Afghanistan or Iraq.

But of course in 1943 in North Africa, Second Corp. Commander Mjr. Gen. George Patton Jr. worried that his troops were not wearing neck ties, so I guess it come with the territory.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at January 20, 2006 02:40 PM

SFTT seyz: "IBV sucks"

MC: "Deaths occur where the plates are not present."

SFTT: "The government is too cheap to buy side plates, even if they save lives and reduce opportunity costs"

Media: "Rumsfeld is screwing the troops."

Armchair: "Bush is evil and is screwing the troops."

Other Armchairs: "You don't need full protection, or you can't fight with full armor."

DOD directive: "You will soon become walking turtles. Have a nice day."

But yes, this is more or less the chronology of this particular incident. Most of us armchair people don't have a true impression of how much the plates weigh, leading to a misconception that we can just pile the stuff on. I guess we could do it in colder climes, like Europe (and North Korea, coughcough).

And Byron: Didn't they say the shoulder armor on a hatch gunner prevented them from "ducking in" in the event of a rollover? Or the comment may have been that wearing the body armor when entering the vehicle made it difficult to stick out of the hatch in the first place, forcing one to get in, assume the gunner station and /then/ armor up.

I'm sure the junior leaders of our military will continue to do what's best. If they don't want full up gear, they won't order it, it will be used elsewhere or mysteriously disappear in normal operations, and reappear when a General shows up.

Posted by: Charles at January 19, 2006 06:12 PM

Good Morning Folks,

Body armor wearing is an issue that sould be left to the local commanders and decided from mission to mission.

For gunners, drivers and other passengers in motor or tracked vehicles, body armor is most appropriate and the max. amount should be provided and worn.

On the other hand a dismounted patrol or snipers that are moving from position to position especially at night where fatique of the soldier and the noise factor from uneccesssary "Battle Rattle" could endanger the mission, any body armor might be to much.

This is a decision that should be left up to the Platoon Leaders and Company Commanders not the sec. of the Army. If the Sec. of the Army wants to be a Jr. Leader his pay should be adjusted in accodance.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at January 19, 2006 02:28 PM

Right, because a guy who's spent all of his career in a boardroom has a clear and lucid understanding of combat realities. Obviously.

Brought to you by the fine folks sponsored by OSD-- "Number one at lowering the bar since the Truman Administration."

Posted by: vicenzo at January 19, 2006 11:20 AM