US Army Values Weapons Over Armor August 2nd, 2006 3:29PM California Time In this first article, titled: 'Inside Source Says US Military Supplying Defective Protective Gear' we learned that the United States Army was at the time providing inadequate and defective bullet-proofing materials to our troops on the ground in Iraq.
The status of the provisions for our troops cited therein came after an enormous outcry on a nationwide level, demanding that the military provide our forces with the best protection available.
In the wake of the report regarding the materials obtained and utilized from Logistics Support Systems, my sources have informed me that the primary manufacturer of defense technology for US Aircraft (Helicopters specifically) has been replaced.
I never received a response from Logistic Support Systems defending their product, or offering any sort of evidence to justify it's use in Iraq.
Nor have I been able to independently verify that Logistics Support Systems was indeed the primary supplier of these defective and inadequate defense measures.
It appears now that the US Army has found the materials the public is demanding.
To date, however, I've seen no evidence of a purchase order.
The Company (one among many) providing these materials, can be found online at: http://www.
armorworks.
com According to the information available on their website, they provide Seat Armor for the CH47 Chinook Helicopter.
The specifications for this are listed as follows: 7.
62mm AP Protection Al2O3 Armor System Ballistic First Article Lot Acceptance Test The part is listed as 'Mission Dependent' meaning it can either be used or not at the discretion of the US Military.
Similar parts, advertised with similar specs, claim to protect both the floor of the cockpit, and of the passenger cabin, respectively.
They are promoted as able to be installed by 'front-line personnel' and do not require special tools in 'most' cases.
One of the sources bringing this information to you happens to work in the armoring of vehicles as they either prepare for shipment overseas or return to the States for repair and refurbishment.
This source maintains that the US Military is NOT, repeat, not utilizing these materials in the protection of our soldiers, even though a manufacturer has been acquired and over 1000 actual armor plate units have been shipped to the Military for installment on these vehicles.
Our source goes on to decry the lack of floor plating used in armoring ground vehicles.
This author will state that while 'special tools' may not be required to drop plate armor onto the floor of a vehicle, it does take a significant amount of work to expose the floor of the vehicle before the plating can be attached.
Helicopter seats don't just 'pop' in and out.
Neither do seats on a Humvee or Ambrams.
ArmorWorks (cited above), has stated publicly that, "Our Ballistic Advantage Armor Kit has received Army safety release from the U.
S.
Army Aberdeen Evaluation Center.
These tests not only certify the Armor against Small Arms, Mine Blast, and Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), but also demonstrate the vehicles road worthiness both on and off road.
" My question, along with millions of other American Citizens, then becomes simple.
If the US Military has been provided with field tested equipment, capable of providing protection from every weapon known to be used in the field against our troops while occupying Iraq, why is this equipment not in place? The stated reason for not up-armoring vehicles was exactly the same from all 3 sources within the US Army that have verified this report.
That reason being, "When you up-armor a vehicle, it adds a lot of weight.
This makes that vehicle unable to carry the payload the mission requires.
Usually it's a choice between sending in our troops and weapons with little or no protection, or not sending them in at all.
" This author for one would choose not sending them at all, but to the point, this report makes it clear where the priorities of the US Army lie.
Image Credit: http://marinecorpsmoms.
com/new_images/IED.
jpg This series began with a recent article, the print version of which is available at: http://libertyinchaos.
livejournal.
com/12341.
html
The status of the provisions for our troops cited therein came after an enormous outcry on a nationwide level, demanding that the military provide our forces with the best protection available.
In the wake of the report regarding the materials obtained and utilized from Logistics Support Systems, my sources have informed me that the primary manufacturer of defense technology for US Aircraft (Helicopters specifically) has been replaced.
I never received a response from Logistic Support Systems defending their product, or offering any sort of evidence to justify it's use in Iraq.
Nor have I been able to independently verify that Logistics Support Systems was indeed the primary supplier of these defective and inadequate defense measures.
It appears now that the US Army has found the materials the public is demanding.
To date, however, I've seen no evidence of a purchase order.
The Company (one among many) providing these materials, can be found online at: http://www.
armorworks.
com According to the information available on their website, they provide Seat Armor for the CH47 Chinook Helicopter.
The specifications for this are listed as follows: 7.
62mm AP Protection Al2O3 Armor System Ballistic First Article Lot Acceptance Test The part is listed as 'Mission Dependent' meaning it can either be used or not at the discretion of the US Military.
Similar parts, advertised with similar specs, claim to protect both the floor of the cockpit, and of the passenger cabin, respectively.
They are promoted as able to be installed by 'front-line personnel' and do not require special tools in 'most' cases.
One of the sources bringing this information to you happens to work in the armoring of vehicles as they either prepare for shipment overseas or return to the States for repair and refurbishment.
This source maintains that the US Military is NOT, repeat, not utilizing these materials in the protection of our soldiers, even though a manufacturer has been acquired and over 1000 actual armor plate units have been shipped to the Military for installment on these vehicles.
Our source goes on to decry the lack of floor plating used in armoring ground vehicles.
This author will state that while 'special tools' may not be required to drop plate armor onto the floor of a vehicle, it does take a significant amount of work to expose the floor of the vehicle before the plating can be attached.
Helicopter seats don't just 'pop' in and out.
Neither do seats on a Humvee or Ambrams.
ArmorWorks (cited above), has stated publicly that, "Our Ballistic Advantage Armor Kit has received Army safety release from the U.
S.
Army Aberdeen Evaluation Center.
These tests not only certify the Armor against Small Arms, Mine Blast, and Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), but also demonstrate the vehicles road worthiness both on and off road.
" My question, along with millions of other American Citizens, then becomes simple.
If the US Military has been provided with field tested equipment, capable of providing protection from every weapon known to be used in the field against our troops while occupying Iraq, why is this equipment not in place? The stated reason for not up-armoring vehicles was exactly the same from all 3 sources within the US Army that have verified this report.
That reason being, "When you up-armor a vehicle, it adds a lot of weight.
This makes that vehicle unable to carry the payload the mission requires.
Usually it's a choice between sending in our troops and weapons with little or no protection, or not sending them in at all.
" This author for one would choose not sending them at all, but to the point, this report makes it clear where the priorities of the US Army lie.
Image Credit: http://marinecorpsmoms.
com/new_images/IED.
jpg This series began with a recent article, the print version of which is available at: http://libertyinchaos.
livejournal.
com/12341.
html