Extra Armor Could Have Saved Many Lives, Study Shows

By MICHAEL MOSS
Published: January 6, 2006

A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

For the first time, the study by the military's medical examiner shows the cost in lost lives from inadequate armor, even as the Pentagon continues to publicly defend its protection of the troops. Officials have said they are shipping the best armor to Iraq as quickly as possible. At the same time, they have maintained that it is impossible to shield forces from the increasingly powerful improvised explosive devices used by insurgents. Yet the Pentagon's own study reveals the equally lethal threat of bullets.

The vulnerability of the military's body armor has been known since the start of the war, and is part of a series of problems that have surrounded the protection of American troops. Still, the Marine Corps did not begin buying additional plates to cover the sides of their troops until this September, when it ordered 28,800 sets, Marine Corps officials acknowledge.

The Army, which has the largest force in Iraq, is still deciding what to purchase, according to Army procurement officials.

Additional forensic studies by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's unit that were obtained by The Times indicate that about 340 American troops have died solely from torso wounds.

The Pentagon has been collecting the data on wounds since the beginning of the war in part to determine the effectiveness of body armor. The military's medical examiner, Craig T. Mallak, told a military panel in 2003 that the information "screams to be published." But it would take nearly two years. - New York Times
--------
When I and others here first started complaining about the armor situation, we were told, in essence, that we didn't know what we were talking about. Will a study conducted by the Pentagon meet the same derision? Lives were lost because of screw-ups and poor decisions. Who gets the blame for that?


The pdf file. Acrobat Reader required.

There are good and bad points to all of that body armor. The good point is that it has saved a lot of lives. The bad part is that those lives may not be worth living because of the mutilating wounds that they suffer that would have been fatal without the armor. More soldiers are coming home tragically disabled because the armor saved their life.

Does that sound like the armor is such a great thing? I do think every soldier is entitled to have body armor, But I wouldn’t want to live out the rest of my life without arms and legs.

the study, as I understand it, was about wounds to the thorax; meaning it was about wounds that would have been prevented had the armor been complete. So there's no way to draw conclusions about other wounds. And to take the reasoning all the way, the argument above seems to be that soldiers are best served by having no protection at all. A corollary question might be: are soldiers required to use the armor? If so, why? And if not, would the fact that evidently most choose to wear it suggest that they like the idea of being protected.

Sid - welcome back to News & Reference!

quote:

Originally posted by sid1114:
The argument above seems to be that soldiers are best served by having no protection at all.

The soldiers would be best served by bringing them home! Not by spending more money on armor. They need to have it if they are going to be there, but they don't need to be there!

quote:

A corollary question might be: are soldiers required to use the armor? If so, why? And if not, would the fact that evidently most choose to wear it suggest that they like the idea of being protected

Yes! They would be required to wear the armor,and most choose to wear the armor because it gives some sense of protection. If you have ever been in a combat situation,anything that seems to give you a better chance of survival,you will wear.
A lot of the troops feel that it hinders some movement,but I have the feeling that they will be willing to get used to it.

Actually, I have been in a combat situation, and I wore my flak jacket. I don't recall being told I had to (it was a long time ago.) I certainly remember thinking the silly helmet wouldn't stop a hell of a lot. My point in the above post was to respond to what seemed an apology for another of the Bush/Rummy failures of command in Iraq. (and I note, today, an article confirming the Pentagon's refusal to send more troops when requested -- per Bremer.)

Fuse: thanks. I've been writing a book. When it's available (couple more months) in stores, I'll post something about it in the Enthusiasts' forum (Karrow says it would be ok!)

Well, I guess that "we went with the army that we had."

This administration really cares about our troops, don't they? My question is -- how do they sleep at night?