Shut the FOX up!

[random evil guy]

have you ever been in the army? you don't wear the mask all the time; you have it with you. it takes about 10 seconds to put it on.

 

Uh I knew you were going to say that it was bait. Now how do you apply that to a bullet proof vest. AS I said it has been proven here in the states not even police officers will wear them unless made to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i don't see your point. wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is uncomfortable; but it saves lives. what are you really saying here? soldiers should wear whatever they feel comfortable in? like sweatpants and a t-shirt...?

[draakh_kimera]

have you ever been in the army? you don't wear the mask all the time; you have it with you. it takes about 10 seconds to put it on.

 

Uh I knew you were going to say that it was bait. Now how do you apply that to a bullet proof vest. AS I said it has been proven here in the states not even police officers will wear them unless made to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i don't see your point. wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is uncomfortable; but it saves lives. what are you really saying here? soldiers should wear whatever they feel comfortable in? like sweatpants and a t-shirt...?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And as for your example Dakoth, there is a distinct risk difference between being a policeman and a soldier. Like they don't have to worry about shrapnel. Anyway, a bullet proof vest weights what maybe around 5 kg give or take. If carrying around an extra 5 kg load is too much you wouldn't have made it into the army. Also, 5kg isn't that much to carry around if it might save your life. As for motorcycle helmets, they're not that bad. Saves your eyes from the wind, and you don't get a bunch of bugs stinging your face when you're riding...

[draakh_kimera]

What the hell does any of this have to do with FOX?

[213374U]

Well since your reading comprehension is a little bad.

 

http://www.blackarmor.com/Vest/Tactical.htm

 

http://www.blackarmor.com/Vest/Plates_Inserts.htm

Yeah, that's nice and all. But there are two important facts about that you are ignoring. Purposefully or not, I can't say.

1) That's not the body armor issued to US soldiers. The standard-issue armor is called 'Interceptor OTV', you can find details about it in the link I provided, if you actually bothered to check.

2) The prices listed there are for sale to the open public, and NOT the price at which they would be sold to the US Army in case they were a Defense contractor.

 

 

A 9mm pistol round differes from a 7.62mm rifle round notive 9mm pistol round falls under IIIA protection while the &.62mm falls under type III.

And you accuse me of bad reading comprehension? Oh well, it can't hurt to clear it up, again.

The outer tactical vest consists of a Kevlar weave that's very fine and will stop 9mm pistol rounds. Webbing on the front and back of the vest permits attaching such equipment as grenades, walkie-talkies and pistols. The Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) is made of a boron carbide ceramic with a spectra shield backing that's an extremely hard material. It stops, shatters and catches any fragments up to a 7.62 mm round with a muzzle velocity of 2,750 feet per second. It's harder than Kevlar.

 

 

Wrong you are claiming victory over something I am not arguing as a matter of fact it seems you understand quite well what I am arguing.  The addition of armor will naot save everyone wich is unfortunately what a some proponents believe.

Obviously it won't save everyone. Nothing will. However that's not reason enough not to provide adequate protection for the troops.

 

 

So even your own article states that the standard armor issued is not protected against 7.62mm rounds the standard round for the AK-47 and the SKS assault rifle.

Yep. Standard armor issued to police officers. I have already proven above that military grade armor can and will protect against rifle fire, including 7.62 mm rounds.

 

 

Politics play a huge roll in it because unless the funding is aproved by both congress and the president this is all a pipe dream.

Politics have nothing to do with you claiming that it's not cost-effective to adequately equip US troops.

[Dakoth]

Yeah, that's nice and all. But there are two important facts about that you are ignoring. Purposefully or not, I can't say.

1) That's not the body armor issued to US soldiers. The standard-issue armor is called 'Interceptor OTV', you can find details about it in the link I provided, if you actually bothered to check.

2) The prices listed there are for sale to the open public, and NOT the price at which they would be sold to the US Army in case they were a Defense contractor.

 

You say the militeary gets things cheap because they buy in bulk and that isn't true. While they buy a lot because they usually have very specific specs that offsets the price. A perfect example of this is the Humvee while it is expensive for the public to buy it is more so for the military because of the options and the different roles it must fill.

 

While that armor is not exactly what the army would get, all armor is made the same and if you would have looked at the links random evil guy gave costs are roughly the same. So since I can not give you exact cost for the military I gave you the cost for the general public so you could get a round about Idea.

 

And you accuse me of bad reading comprehension? Oh well, it can't hurt to clear it up, again.

 

Do I need to post the Ballistics chart again or how about I quote from the article you posted. I understnd the military issue will stop aa 7.62 round some people don't understand the

 

Obviously it won't save everyone. Nothing will. However that's not reason enough not to provide adequate protection for the troops.

 

Once again something I am not arguing.

 

Politics have nothing to do with you claiming that it's not cost-effective to adequately equip US troops.

 

No cost effective has nothing to do with it. Have you ever heard the saiyng **** or get off the pot? Thats what both sides need to do, if both Dems and reps think its such a good thing then damnit give them the funding and get the armor over there.

As usual because of our typical government they bauk and we die.

 

What an argument.. because ballistic armour doesn't protect against all types of calibers it's somehow an excuse for the government to not buy armour to their troops? Uh.. ok.

 

Most armour won't protect you if you're hit spot on from close range. But most shot wounds aren't that clean (unless you somehow find yourself on an open field, the wind stops blowing and a sniper gets his sights on you). Most often the shooter has to fire from the side or misses his aim a little or even misses completely but the ricochet hits the target instead. That's when ballistic armour is a lifesaver.

 

Against high velocity weapons, there's not an armour in the world that will save you, since even being hit in the hand means your intestants come flying out of your groin.

 

Wow you came full circle Mkreku you went from not having a clue what I am arguing to hitting it spot on. I said in an earlie post that the reason I have brought up what I have is because some proponants of the armor think if they had it our soliders would miraculously quit dieing and as you and I and others have pointed out the addition of armor will save some but not all. The killing devices we made are too effective during a time of war, especially against people who want to kill and don't care how, our soliders are going to die.

 

i don't see your point. wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is uncomfortable; but it saves lives. what are you really saying here? soldiers should wear whatever they feel comfortable in? like sweatpants and a t-shirt...?

 

The motorcycle helmet is a perfect example while it does save lives there are those people that don't wear them aren't there. The typical thought line is aw that will never happen to me. What I tried to say is on routine patrol in an area not active with insugents all the time in 90+ degree heat I am pretty sure there will be some that don't wear it unless forced to, thus making them easier targets. As I said it is human nature look at the motorcycle helmet, and police officers in the states they are good examples as I said before.

 

In short for all of you that don't seem to understand I want our troops to have body armor. I unlike some understand that with the tactics used and some of the weapons availible to the insurgents this will not stop the body count from rising. Also because this is something I think is important why can congress and the President not move the funding appropriations to the front of the line, get rid of the partisanship and get the stuff over there. It is a wonderful thing to talk about but how bout we see some action.

[Ludozee]

I thought a standard military body armour only protects against ricochets and indirect grenade fragments?

When the vest is hit by an FMJ bullet the speed of the bullet will be decreased by the vest from 100's of metres p/s to 10's of metres p/s and the potential energy becomes kinetic energy, wich in turn will be realesed on your body. Power equals mass times speed square, so your body will take a huge hit from the bullet. This can lead to shattered bones and severe internal trauma. Its the speed of the bullet which is the problem.

To make things even worse, a bullet can get fragmented or distorted by the vest which, when it penetrates the vest, will lead to very severe wounds. It's better when a bullet enters the body whithout losing speed or becoming distorted and exit in one piece, because the wound will be much "cleaner".

[213374U]

You say the militeary gets things cheap because they buy in bulk and that isn't true.  While they buy a lot because they usually have very specific specs that offsets the price. A perfect example of this is the Humvee while it is expensive for the public to buy it is more so for the military because of the options and the different roles it must fill.

Can you provide figures about how much each Humvee costs to the Army? I didn't think so. However, and if indeed they are more expensive in comparison to the civilian versions, perhaps it has something to do with the military equipment they bring, namely light/heavy armor, TOW launchers, whatever?

 

Either way, it doesn't really matter. Purchasing in bulk is cheaper, and your reasoning and example don't apply to body armor because that kind of equipment has only one possible function. That is, preventing you from getting a lethal overdose of lead. It's not like they are going to use armor plates as frying pans, you know.

 

 

So since I can not give you exact cost for the military I gave you the cost for the general public so you could get a round about Idea.

As I said, until you can prove that the Army gets the same prices for their equipment as you would, I'll go with what I do know. That is, buying in great numbers decreases the costs.

 

 

No cost effective has nothing to do with it.

First you claim that body armor is next to worthless. Then you state it would cost too much to equip every soldier with it. That's arguing that it's not cost-effective, even if you don't say that explicitly.

 

Again, leave politics out of this. I'm just discussing facts here. You are trying to turn this into an argument about how the democrats f*cked up the military budgets. I don't know nor do I care about that. You want to whine about it? Don't let me stop you. However it is rather cruel to have soldiers dying just to make a freaking point.

[213374U]

I thought a standard military body armour only protects against ricochets and indirect grenade fragments?

Depends on the armor. There are quite a few links about body armor in this thread, I suggest you read them.

 

 

When the vest is hit by an FMJ bullet the speed of the bullet will be decreased by the vest from 100's of metres p/s to 10's of metres p/s and the potential energy becomes kinetic energy, wich in turn will be realesed on your body. Power equals mass times speed square, so your body will take a huge hit from the bullet. This can lead to shattered bones and severe internal trauma. Its the speed of the bullet which is the problem.

100% true. Rifle rounds are usually much faster than handgun rounds due to the greater length of rifle barrels compared to shorter guns. Penetrating power doesn't entirely rely on the round's speed, though. Anyway, the body doesn't need to absorb all of the bullet's kinetic energy since when hit without body armor, the bullet will usually not stay in the body. With the larger calibers though, getting hit by one of those ensures there won't be much left of you to be recognized, due to the massive kinetic impact, as you pointed out. That's not what body armor is designed to protect against however, since larger calibers are used mostly against vehicles. And it's not like the militias in Iraq have plenty of .50 Barretts to play with.

 

 

To make things even worse, a bullet can get fragmented or distorted by the vest which, when it penetrates the vest, will lead to very severe wounds. It's better when a bullet enters the body whithout losing speed or becoming distorted and exit in one piece, because the wound will be much "cleaner".

No. Penetration ammunition will not fragment upon impact. It's designed to resist the impact and be strong enough to go through whatever protection layers it's designed to defeat. Consider that when a bullet is fragmented, the individual fragments will have a much lesser chance of penetrating due to less kinetic energy, oblique trajectory, and irregular shapes. In that respect, penetration rounds are less 'damaging' than hollow point ammo.

[Ludozee]

No. Penetration ammunition will not fragment upon impact. It's designed to resist the impact and be strong enough to go through whatever protection layers it's designed to defeat. Consider that when a bullet is fragmented, the individual fragments will have a much lesser chance of penetrating due to less kinetic energy, oblique trajectory, and irregular shapes. In that respect, penetration rounds are less 'damaging' that hollow point ammo.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, it may not fragment, but it can get distorted. And because of the decrease in speed and the way it penetrates the armour, the bullet will not always follow a straight path, which could lead to worse injuries.

It depends on what the bullet hits inside the body. If it hits an organ when you wear a vest, the damage probably will be worse than when it hits a bone, because the bullet doesnt have enough power left to shatter the bone, but enough to tear a huge whole in an organ.

If you get hit when not wearing a vest and the bullet hits a bone, the damage will probably worse than when it hits an organ, because it will travel straigh throug the organ and most of the potential energy will be wasted, while when it hits a bone, the bone will shatter.

 

Of course, the above stated things are not per definition true, due to exceptions and Murphy's Law, but warfare is all about odds, isn't it?

[213374U]

If you get hit when not wearing a vest and the bullet hits a bone, the damage will probably worse than when it hits an organ, because it will travel straigh throug the organ and most of the potential energy will be wasted, while when it hits a bone, the bone will shatter.

I don't know. However, I have seen some slow-mo videos and pics of fruits being shot with pistols, and every time the fruit is blown to dust/tiny pieces, literally. I guess getting shot in the liver is bad news. Much worse than getting shot in a knee or the hip, vest or not.

[Ludozee]

I don't know. However, I have seen some slow-mo videos and pics of fruits being shot with pistols, and every time the fruit is blown to dust/tiny pieces, literally. I guess getting shot in the liver is bad news. Much worse than getting shot in a knee or the hip, vest or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, but from the very few things I know about surgery, I think that it is (relatively) easy to just close two holes on each side of an organ, instead of reconstructing a bone.

 

Btw, on the subject of un-biased newschannels, I prefer Euronews, a French channel wich is very objective, no analists or whatsoever, just plain news with a voiceover.

[Dakoth]

Can you provide figures about how much each Humvee costs to the Army? I didn't think so. However, and if indeed they are more expensive in comparison to the civilian versions, perhaps it has something to do with the military equipment they bring, namely light/heavy armor, TOW launchers, whatever?

 

Uh your point was that the military gets cheap because of quantity, the humvee disproves that. I can play your game also it is your word against mine prove to me that the vests will cost significantly less thab 1000.00 dollars a piece. Buying in bulk will lower the price, but I have yet to see cutting it in half or less so please if you require it of me show hard numbers from the government on how "cheap" this armor is.

 

First you claim that body armor is next to worthless. Then you state it would cost too much to equip every soldier with it. That's arguing that it's not cost-effective, even if you don't say that explicitly.

 

Glad to see you're putting words in my mouth. What I said was the armor will not keep our troops from dieing in a war zone plain and simple. If you truly read my posts and looked at the link provided you would see I gave all the people the information they need to know. From the ballistics chart used to rate the vests to a cost estimate. Even if the troops would have had body armor how many of them would it have saved when the suicide bomber bombed the messhall? Thats right none because they would have not been wearing it.

 

Again, leave politics out of this. I'm just discussing facts here. You are trying to turn this into an argument about how the democrats f*cked up the military budgets. I don't know nor do I care about that. You want to whine about it? Don't let me stop you. However it is rather cruel to have soldiers dying just to make a freaking point.

 

Clinton cut the budget yes my point exactly. The question now is why the hell can't republicans and the democrats hasten their movements to get it rectified. The answer is simple politics. This is why politics are involved.

 

Sgt. Gary Frisbee, of Chattanooga, Tenn., suits up in his body armor before going out to stand guard at the District Advisory Council building in Baghdad. He credits the armor with saving his life in a recent firefight.

 

Body armor saves U.S. lives in Iraq

 

Pentagon criticized for

shortage of protective vests

 

By Vernon Loeb and Theola Labb

[Dakoth]

I thought a standard military body armour only protects against ricochets and indirect grenade fragments?

When the vest is hit by an FMJ bullet the speed of the bullet will be decreased by the vest from 100's of metres p/s to 10's of metres p/s and the potential energy becomes kinetic energy, wich in turn will be realesed on your body. Power equals mass times speed square, so your body will take a huge hit from the bullet. This can lead to shattered bones and severe internal trauma. Its the speed of the bullet which is the problem.

To make things even worse, a bullet can get fragmented or distorted by the vest which, when it penetrates the vest, will lead to very severe wounds. It's better when a bullet enters the body whithout losing speed or becoming distorted and exit in one piece, because the wound will be much "cleaner".

 

Depends on the armor. There are quite a few links about body armor in this thread, I suggest you read them.

 

100% true as shown in the link I gave there is body armor that will keep up to a 30 cal armor piercing round from penetrating it although yes I can't imagine it would fel good when it hits you. Also I am sure if encumbrance wasn't an issue they could do even better but remember our guys need to be able to move out there.

 

I don't know. However, I have seen some slow-mo videos and pics of fruits being shot with pistols, and every time the fruit is blown to dust/tiny pieces, literally. I guess getting shot in the liver is bad news. Much worse than getting shot in a knee or the hip, vest or not.

 

Thats because a bullet doesn't cut when going through something it tears. Remember a bullet is basically a blunt projectile, one of the reasons kevlar is effective so many times stronger than steel in a tight weave.

[213374U]

Uh your point was that the military gets cheap because of quantity, the humvee disproves that.

No. That example isn't applicable to body armor because your reasoning is based on that the different configurations of humvees (due to different functions) raise the price. I don't know about that but I'm willing to accept it. However, there are no different armor configurations because those things only do one thing - protect against fire. Basic logic, you lose.

 

 

Glad to see you're putting words in my mouth.  What I said was the armor will not keep our troops from dieing in a war zone plain and simple.

I don't need to put words into your mouth. You said it yourself:

Could someone explain to me what body armor we are supposed to arm the troops with?  I am just a little curious as the addition of teflon to a round renders kevlar obsolete. So anyone fighting the US just buys here is a term I know you have heard before "cop killer" rounds rendering all that money spent useless, not to mention the fact it doesn't help against shrapnel, or high powered rounds out of the machine guns used in infantry support.

So, when proven wrong by evidence, you just deny what you said earlier, eh? What will be next, deleting your own old posts?

[Dakoth]

No. That example isn't applicable to body armor because your reasoning is based on that the different configurations of humvees (due to different functions) raise the price. I don't know about that but I'm willing to accept it. However, there are no different armor configurations because those things only do one thing - protect against fire. Basic logic, you lose.

 

Really so the fact they can configure them to with stand different calliber bullets, what can be harnessed or carried by them, wieght restrictions, the abillity to take them on and off quickly, different collors for different fighting environments would have nothing to do with the cost (I mean heck an infantryman wearing arctic camo body armor would kind of stick out in the desert wouldn't he?)? Remeber those are things that really do not effect civilian armor. The thing you also must remeber is the armor that is being talked about is worn over the uniform because it is so bulky thick padding, thick plate, lots of kevlar =hard to put under your shirt.

 

I don't need to put words into your mouth. You said it yourself:

 

So you don't agree with that so all troops in a war zone a safe as long as they wear their armor? That armor would have a hard time protecting the driver of a humvee if his door was hit by an RPG don't you think? I feel that what I said;

the armor will not keep our troops from dieing in a war zone plain and simple; holds true. While what you said earlier also is true some will be saved by the body armor.

 

So, when proven wrong by evidence, you just deny what you said earlier, eh? What will be next, deleting your own old posts?

 

Don't need to for one that was to see who actually understands what they are talking about. While you understand about armor you just can't seem to understand that there are people out there that lobby for it because they believe it is actually bullet proof and not just bullet resistant. As I said it gives a false sense of security to the loved ones at home. Oh my boy/girl is safe because he wears his/her body armor. That statement couldn't be farther from the truth when in a war zone.

[213374U]

Oh my boy/girl is safe because he wears his/her body armor.  That statement couldn't be farther from the truth when in a war zone.

That would be funny if it weren't people we're talking about. I guess you would just go to war in sweatpants and a t-shirt because armor vests are only good for providing a false sense of security.

[mkreku]

Wow you came full circle Mkreku you went from not having a clue what I am arguing to hitting it spot on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, you're in a great position to tell anyone they don't have a clue after getting every argument of yours stripped naked and spanked blue for the last 5 pages

 

Armoured vests save lives. It's as simple as that. Not having a vest = higher risk of losing your life. 40 million dollars might not have been enough to buy everyone a vest, but a few thousand soldiers would have been safer at least.

[Dakoth]

That would be funny if it weren't people we're talking about. I guess you would just go to war in sweatpants and a t-shirt because armor vests are only good for providing a false sense of security. 

 

Funny as in odd but anything to argue right. <_<

8 entries found for funny.

To select an entry, click on it.

funny[1,adjective]funny[2,noun]funny bonefunny bookfunny carfunny farmfunny moneyfunny paper

 

Main Entry: 1fun

[draakh_kimera]

Em, doen't wanna get too involved in this discussion, but how many lives have those vests saved? It might not be that comparable to the death toll, but that's still a life saved...

[Nick_i_am]

This thread gets my vote for thread of the year 2005

[Dakoth]

Em, doen't wanna get too involved in this discussion, but how many lives have those vests saved?  It might not be that comparable to the death toll, but that's still a life saved...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Not at issue here I don't deny they save lives we see it here in the states just with the vests police officers use. My whole arguement is that the death toll will still rise so blaing the death toll on the unavailibilty of vests is a little off.

[random evil guy]

Em, doen't wanna get too involved in this discussion, but how many lives have those vests saved?  It might not be that comparable to the death toll, but that's still a life saved...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Not at issue here I don't deny they save lives we see it here in the states just with the vests police officers use. My whole arguement is that the death toll will still rise so blaing the death toll on the unavailibilty of vests is a little off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i don't think anyone is blaming the death yoll on the lack of vests; i guess most people just think that vests could reduce the number of killed soldiers. it may not save a lot of lives, but maybe a few...?

[Dakoth]

Em, doen't wanna get too involved in this discussion, but how many lives have those vests saved?  It might not be that comparable to the death toll, but that's still a life saved...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Not at issue here I don't deny they save lives we see it here in the states just with the vests police officers use. My whole arguement is that the death toll will still rise so blaing the death toll on the unavailibilty of vests is a little off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i don't think anyone is blaming the death yoll on the lack of vests; i guess most people just think that vests could reduce the number of killed soldiers. it may not save a lot of lives, but maybe a few...?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The thing is no one brings these things up when talking about the armor all you here is how the armor would save lives; no adjectives attached just lives; leading people to believe the death tool would have been significantly lower if they all would have had the body armor our government denied them. While I believe the death toll would have been smaller I don't nescessarily believe it would have been significantly smaller with the addition of body armor.

 

As I said I don't dissagree with that. In the case of firefights with the insurgents I see them being of great benefit as they are not regular army and can not field many more powerful weapons than an AK-47. The problem is the normal attacks, at least the ones the news reports on are usually some kind of bombing, mortar attack, or RPG attack those are something that even the body armor would have trouble defending against.

[213374U]

all you here is how the armor would save lives; no adjectives attached just lives; leading people to believe the death tool would have been significantly lower if they all would have had the body armor our government denied them.

Which is 100% true. Shrapnel and low caliber ammunitions are the two top hazards the soldiers are exposed to. Incidentally, that's what ballistic body armor is designed to protect from. Sorry, every time your arguments are defeated you cling to minor, technical or outright irrelevant details such as 'the variety of colors of the vests would offset the fact that they are bought in bulk'.

You have proven to be one of the many people on these boards who are totally impervious to reason, logic and facts. Congratulations. I am done with this thread.

[Dakoth]

Which is 100% true. Shrapnel and low caliber ammunitions are the two top hazards the soldiers are exposed to. Incidentally, that's what ballistic body armor is designed to protect from. Sorry, every time your arguments are defeated you cling to minor, technical or outright irrelevant details such as 'the variety of colors of the vests would offset the fact that they are bought in bulk'.

You have proven to be one of the many people on these boards who are totally impervious to reason, logic and facts. Congratulations. I am done with this thread.

 

Since it took you so long to post I came up with some numbers from the military and some intersting facts.

 

Taken from olivedrab.com

 

In the late 1990s, an Army and Marine Corps team produced the Interceptor Multi-Threat Body Armor System that provided improved protection while weighing about ten pounds less than its predecessor, the Personal Armor Systems, Ground Troops (PASGT) flak vest. The Interceptor system was put into quantity production for troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

The Interceptor Multi-Threat Body Armor System is made up of two main modular components: the outer tactical vest (OTV) and the small-arms protective inserts (SAPI). The unisex Kevlar OTV is also equipped with removable throat and groin protectors. With the front and back SAPI ceramic plates inserted, the vest can stop 7.62 mm rounds.

 

Origins of the Interceptor Flak Vest

Interceptor Body Armor stems from the 1994-vintage 24-pound Ranger Body Armor (RBA) designed by the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center (Natick, MA) at the request of the 75th Ranger Regiment. The 9-pound RBA vest gives the wearer high quality handgun ballistic and fragmentation protection. With the addition of 7.5-pound aluminum oxide ceramic armor plates placed in the front and back chest pockets, the RBA wearer is further protected from armor piercing rifle ammunition. The success of RBA led to a materials research program to achieve the same performance with less weight. The RBA vests continued in Army inventory through the early phase of the Iraq War, until replaced by Interceptor.

 

The Interceptor Flak Vest Goes to War

The Interceptor Multi-Threat Body Armor System went into production in 1999 under a five-year contract awarded by U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center to Point Blank Body Armor of Oakland Park, FL.

 

The new Interceptor body armor is being worn by soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army and Marines rushed to get enough body armor into Iraq and Afghanistan by December 2003 for everyone who needed it, as fast as it came off the assembly line. For many Marines, the PASGT flak vest is giving way to the new Interceptor body armor-an effective and highly valued piece of gear in the global war on terrorism. Because the Interceptor body armor was in relative short supply, deploying service members got priority at their points of issue. Accounting for two armor plates for each Marine in the ground combat element, the Marines fielded 94,056 plates for active forces and 39,284 for reserve forces.

 

Interceptor Flak Vest Ballistic Protection

The Interceptor's inter-changeable components give troops the ability to dress to the level of a particular threat.

 

By itself, the Interceptor vest insulates a soldier from shrapnel and 9-mm pistol rounds. When the protective Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPI) are added, the system acts as a ballistic barrier to 7.62-mm rifle ammunition. The PASGT flak vest only offered protection against fragmentation.

 

The Interceptor outer tactical vest consists of a very fine Kevlar weave that will stop 9mm pistol rounds. Webbing on the front and back of the vest permits attaching such equipment as grenades, walkie-talkies and pistols. The Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) is made of a boron carbide ceramic with a spectra shield backing, an extremely hard material. It stops, shatters and catches any fragments up to a 7.62 mm round with a muzzle velocity of 2,750 feet per second. It's harder than Kevlar. The four pound high-technology plates cost approximately $350 each to produce, a considerable cost reduction achieved by Army-industry cooperation.

 

The vest comes with neck and crotch protection attachments. It will work with all current and anticipated load carrying equipment. With the fasteners along the right side, the vest still protects the front of the body even when open. The vest also has a quick release feature, so if the soldier needs to drop the plates, one tug and they