PDA

View Full Version : Corps to field two new body armor vests



CommunityEditor
01-05-2009, 09:15 PM
BAGHDAD — Acting on widespread complaints from its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Marine Corps has ordered major modifications to its body armor to improve comfort, mobility and safety, The Associated Press has learned.

The decision results from a survey of more than 1,000 Marines, many of whom reported that their flak jackets, which cost the Marine Corps more than $100 million, were too heavy and restrictive.

“The Marine Corps is developing an Improved Modular Tactical Vest to address the problem areas uncovered by the survey results,” Capt. Geraldine Carey, a Marine spokeswoman, told the AP by e-mail last week.

Earlier in 2008, the Marine Commandant, Gen. James Conway, temporarily suspended an order for more than 20,000 of the so-called Modular Tactical Vests.

“I’ve worn the vest on my travels into Iraq and Afghanistan, and I can tell you those Marines have raised some valid points,” Conway told the AP by e-mail.

Body armor has been an issue since the Iraq war began in 2003. The Army reportedly had a shortage of the ceramic protective plates needed to make vests effective, and lawmakers demanded answers from the Department of Defense after reports surfaced of soldiers’ families buying the plates themselves and sending them to Iraq.

The Marine Corps has been ahead in distributing adequate body armor and replacement parts to its troops, though it too has struggled to adapt and fine-tune the technology in an ever-changing urban warfare environment. The vest now used by the Marines in Iraq is the Corps’ third since 2001.

There are other lighter types of body armor that are widely used by police but they are not approved for combat. The Modular Tactical Vest, designed by the Marine Corps to improve on an older jacket, has a track record of stopping bullets and shrapnel.

It was designed to better protect the kidneys, lower back and torso in urban combat, and make it easier to carry ammunition, water and grenades.

The vest was the top choice of troops who tested it before a manufacturer was awarded the contract, according to Lt. Col. T.V. Johnson, Conway’s spokesman. Marine and Pentagon officials said it has a proven record of protecting troops, and Carey said there are no reports of failings that resulted in injury or death during combat.

But troops in the field started complaining almost as soon as the vests were issued in 2007.

At 30 pounds it is bulky and between one to three pounds heavier than its predecessor depending on its size, adding to the burden on Marines who carry more than 90 pounds of gear. Army officials testifying before Congress in 2007 said they turned down the vest because it was heavier and no more effective than what the Army was using.

Because the vest rides higher on the chest for added protection, and features shoulder straps and buckles for adjustment and quick removal, several Marines blamed it for causing facial bruises when rifle butts slipped during recoil.

To better shoulder their weapon, some Marines loosened straps to lower the vest, exposing their upper torsos, according to a Marine field commander in Iraq who spoke on condition of anonymity because it is against policy for troops to alter the vest.

Told of the practice by the AP, Conway said: “Any decision to scale down levels of protection for the sake of comfort is wholly unacceptable.”

The vest has a tab for quickly removing the vest to prevent a tragedy, such as when a Marine in an older jacket couldn’t remove it and drowned. But Marines complained that the tab snagged equipment, and are now told to tuck away the tab.

Unlike previous jackets, which Marines could just throw on and go, this one requires training or online video courses on how to wear it.

An initial 84,000 vests at a cost of more than $84 million were ordered in September 2006, nine months after an urgent request came in from the field for better protection. Conway, who became commandant after the contract was issued, put a hold on the last batch of 20,000 vests, questioning their design and testing.

He later lifted the suspension and the Marine Corps ordered more than $17 million worth of vests and replacement parts over the summer.

The current vest costs about $1,050, according to Lt. Col. A.J. Pasagian, who oversaw the survey at Quantico, Va. The price of the improved vest wasn’t immediately known.


Article: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/01/ap_marines_vest_010409/

CommunityEditor
01-19-2009, 11:47 PM
The Corps is seeking replacements for both kinds of body armor it commonly issues, and could have new vests on Marines late this year.

The Improved Modular Tactical Vest and the Improved Scalable Plate Carrier will be sought through separate competitions this summer, said Lt. Col. A.J. Pasagian, program manager of Infantry Combat Equipment at Marine Corps Systems Command at Quantico, Va. They will replace the bulky MTV commonly in use in Iraq and the SPC, which was first fielded widely last year in Afghanistan as a lighter alternative, helpful in mountainous terrain.

While the IMTV will be the main body armor system for Marines, the Corps plans to order about 70,000 of the improved plate carriers, far more than the estimated 10,000 to 14,000 plate carriers in use today, Pasagian said. Many Marines in Afghanistan are now issued both the MTV and SPC.

“We are looking at expanding [production of the plate carrier] because it’s a really valuable alternative for commanders whose units are going into areas where mobility is important, like mountainous areas, or into areas with a hot, jungle environment,” Pasagian said. “A good amount of Marines are wearing the scalable plate carrier successfully in Afghanistan, and we’re getting a lot of good feedback on that.”

There are about 108,000 MTVs in use Corpswide — at a cost of about $1,000 each, Pasagian said — that the Corps plans to fully replace with the IMTV. The plate carriers cost $400 to $500 each.

The development of the IMTV grew out of complaints from troops in Iraq about the weight and discomfort of the MTV, which can weigh up to 30 pounds when filled with its associated armor plates.

In the past few months, SysCom Marines have traveled as far as Japan to seek out a grunt’s-eye view on the MTV’s shortcomings, Pasagian said. Infantrymen and other Marines in the fleet reported problems with everything from the vest’s opening at the neck, where it rubs skin raw, to its cumberbund, where the lack of padding can lead to chafing.

Reducing the weight of the vest is a key issue. But Marine officials also anticipate a new neck hole on the IMTV that is up to a ½-inch larger than the current version, a move that compromises protection but cuts down on chafing and allows Marines to more quickly turn at the neck, Pasagian said.

The Corps also will redesign the MTV’s shoulder area, although what changes will be made remains uncertain, Pasagian said. Marine officials acknowledge something must change, as some Marines have loosened straps on the MTV to better shoulder their weapon and avoid being hammered in the face when rifle butts slip during recoil.

“Were Marines doing that? Yes. Is it acceptable? No,” Pasagian said. “The MTV has multiple adjustment points, and it’s set up that way so that you can bear the weight and load evenly.”

The MTV was approved for use in 2006, and was lauded at the time for offering improved protection and a lighter design than a variation of the Army’s Interceptor Outer Tactical Vest that Marines were wearing at the time. The Army later rejected issuing the MTV to soldiers, saying it was too bulky, and instead sent out the Improved Outer Tactical Vest.

Pasagian said the Corps and Army also are working together on a vest that could eventually “stabilize the line” for body armor. That vest would likely have a different name and draw on lessons learned by both services, with production beginning no earlier than 2012.


Article: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/01/marine_bodyarmor_011908w/

sp4rt4n_ii7
03-21-2009, 04:19 AM
"The vest was the top choice of troops who tested it before a manufacturer was awarded the contract, according to Lt. Col. T.V. Johnson, Conway’s spokesman. "
yeah from eight POG's who didnt use the SAPI plates when they tested it....
the two grunts in the test didnt like it.

(thats heresay, but sounds reliable and consistent with the marine corps way of testing new gear)

iluvdrt
03-26-2009, 09:57 PM
"
yeah from eight POG's who didnt use the SAPI plates when they tested it....
the two grunts in the test didnt like it.

(thats heresay, but sounds reliable and consistent with the marine corps way of testing new gear)


If I were you I wouldnt so much trust into hearsay. No one likes these vests. POGs might not be in the field wearing the damn thing 24-7, but they still know when something is not right.

The vests are heavy, rediculous to put on, the magazine placement is ridiculous (you cant open the vest with all that stuff on the front), they are uncomfortable, bulky, you cant use the head wearing one, heck you cant move in the darn thing. All of that is without the sapies. With the sapies your a walking tank, and as heavy and mobile as one too.
Everyone knows this within the first 10 minutes of putting it on.

They should have seen this coming in the long run, and instead of spending millions trying to improve it, they should have just let everyone get the dragon skin. Maybe next time they will more than a few people to test it. They should get a company of grunts to test the stuff for like a month. I say grunts because they are the ones running around and doing stuff in it all the time. From what I have seen POGS pretty much wear theirs in transit then stow it in their sea bags when they get to work.

I am curious about what new "modification" or "attachment" they will come up with next to improve it.

I just cant believe with all this technology we have to wear plates that are an inch thick and weight 10lbs apiece.

(sorry for mispelled words, my key board is filled with sand and some buttons dont work)

janewayneUSMC
03-27-2009, 12:20 AM
You've brought up some very valid points here with repsoect to the disadvanteges of the armor.
Why would they spend so much money (which the Marines don't have enough of to begin with) on something with so little combat efficiency?
Is there no metal or material out there that is light enough, perhaps even flexible that will stop the round of an AK? And to be able to take more than one hit before it is out of commission?!

ONeezy
03-30-2009, 04:39 AM
Everyone is complaining about the MTV everytime I turn around. I only have a few brief statements on this issue. First off you have to remember that in the time between the testing of the Spartan II and the rest of the prototype vest and the time the MTV was fielded we adopted another important peice of gear. Enhanced Sapi plates. These are bulkier than the normal SAPI plates. Also the fielding of the E-Side SAPI.

My only real complaint about the MTV is the bottom of the cumberbun. The addition of a padding like the one found on the ILBE packs would make these vests feel much better. Also the old Interceptor vests required training to properly employ. How many junior Marines have you walked by that have gear just hanging off of their vest because no one ever took the time to teach them how to properly use the MOLLE weaving technology on the vests. Its just like your pack when you go on a hump. If you don't know how to pack the pack/ RUC properly it is the most uncomfortable peice of gear you own. If packed properly the pack/RUC isnt so bad.

Secondly why isnt the Marine Corps looking at alternatives to the MTV and the Plate carrier. Like the Crye CAGE Armor Chassis, that has excellent padding and well as a ballistic belt for the waist a larger groin protector, and modular shoulder pads. Or the ever so contraverstial Dragonskin. I think that Dragon skin needs a second look and one or two simultainious blind studies done by the DOD, DOJ, and a civilian Company who would look to employ the Body Armor like Blackwater or Tripple Cannopy. See how the test results fair in those field tests. And make sure that they are all subjecting the technology to the same tests. Maybe we don't want to use one of these two options but we should look at both of them plus the complaints and suggestions about the FLAK jacket, the Interceptor, the MTV, and the Plate carrier and try to build from there. It may not be a 5 month turn around to feild to the entire DOD but if we take a year or two of closely working back and forth with the contractor on test proto types that they constantly field day in and day out with the changes requested I think we could have a product that would stay around for many years to come.