Alaska Darin Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I guess you didn't get the DNC memo. The current talking points are to attack Rumsfeld. Please stay on message, like a good little political operative. 172958[/snapback] She's still trying to get over Dr. Dean's loss to Johnenstein. It's going to be awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 She's still trying to get over Dr. Dean's loss to Johnenstein. It's going to be awhile. 172965[/snapback] But she can still stay on message, though. You need to stick with the talking points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I think the term bullet proof armor is a bit deceptive. The Interceptor flak (a hybrid of the old ranger body armor) is what rangers and special forces wear. The problem with it is it can only stop 9mm and 44 rounds. It can NOT stop a 7.62 round being shot out of an AK47 or Russian SKS. Basically it can stop pea shooters but not the rifles the terrorist are using. A few months ago I was shooting off rounds with an AK-47. My buddy had a half inch steel plate and wanted to see if we could shoot through it. From the distance of 20 meters, the AK-47 shot clean through it. 172602[/snapback] detox, Not entirely true. My understanding of the "new" body armor is the plating will take a single high speed round, but the ceramics shatter. Therefore providing "NO" protection for the next round. Russia is taking advantage but having a new rifle with a high cycle rate that will in effect throw two round down range along the same trajectory. First one shatters, second one pentrates. Of course you don't hear about this as not only to the troops "want" and "need" the "new" stuff, but you actually need a lot of extra plates laying around to replace quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 detox, Not entirely true. My understanding of the "new" body armor is the plating will take a single high speed round, but the ceramics shatter. Therefore providing "NO" protection for the next round. Russia is taking advantage but having a new rifle with a high cycle rate that will in effect throw two round down range along the same trajectory. First one shatters, second one pentrates. Of course you don't hear about this as not only to the troops "want" and "need" the "new" stuff, but you actually need a lot of extra plates laying around to replace quickly. 172996[/snapback] You're correct, I misspoke when comparing the two types of body armor. The old RBA which I use to wear could not stop a 7.62 round. The new Interceptor body armor can stop one 7.62 round from 50 meters. The problem they're going to run into is the insurgents will upgrade to a stronger round. (ex armor piercing, smart ammunition) I wish I could find the video. There is a video where they put level IV body armor on live animals. What they did was try out different ammo to see what got through it. Not exactly endorsed by PETA, but it got the point across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 The new Interceptor body armor can stop one 7.62 round from 50 meters. The problem they're going to run into is the insurgents will upgrade to a stronger round.173424[/snapback] Key words in that being "one round". Won't stop two...and I'm willing to bet that most of the gomers over there taking potshots at the troops don't take single shots. You probably don't need any special ammo if you can put more than one shot on target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Key words in that being "one round". Won't stop two...and I'm willing to bet that most of the gomers over there taking potshots at the troops don't take single shots. You probably don't need any special ammo if you can put more than one shot on target. 173565[/snapback] You need to put two on the same plate. There are multiple plates in the jacket Tom. First round hitting will break it's integrity. So in theory you could get hit multiple times , just not in the same plate. Second one is going through. The other problem though is making the new jackets and plates. It takes time. These things were only approved last year. Also, the loss of integrity after one hit was part of the issue. While the old jacket did not stop rounds from higher trajectory ammo, the maintained their integrity through multiple hits with shrapnel, slower rounds. The new jacket will not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 You need to put two on the same plate. There are multiple plates in the jacket Tom. First round hitting will break it's integrity. So in theory you could get hit multiple times , just not in the same plate. Second one is going through. You know I knew that. While the old jacket did stop rounds from higher trajectory ammo, the maintained their integrity through multiple hits with shrapnel, slower rounds. The new jacket will not. 173789[/snapback] That I didn't know. Of course, bullets stand a much greater chance of killing you than shrapnel does, so one could argue it's a reasonable trade-off...but personally, I wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 You know I knew that. That I didn't know. Of course, bullets stand a much greater chance of killing you than shrapnel does, so one could argue it's a reasonable trade-off...but personally, I wouldn't. 174007[/snapback] There should have been a not in the original message. The old jackets did not stop high speed rounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 There should have been a not in the original message. The old jackets did not stop high speed rounds 174013[/snapback] You're right...there should have been. Interestingly enough...I hallucinated one anyway. I knew what you meant. What I didn't know was that the new armor was more vulnerable to shrapnel. Hell, I can imagine certain situations where that makes it worse than useless... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 You're right...there should have been. Interestingly enough...I hallucinated one anyway. I knew what you meant. What I didn't know was that the new armor was more vulnerable to shrapnel. Hell, I can imagine certain situations where that makes it worse than useless... 174019[/snapback] Obviously I don't have anything more than conjecture and what friends have told me. But I have no reason to doubt what they say. The plating integrity is real important on the new vests. Someone described it as a car airbag. It works once and then has to be replaced. Whether it's a 10 mph Rosen or a 60 mph Rosen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Obviously I don't have anything more than conjecture and what friends have told me. But I have no reason to doubt what they say. The plating integrity is real important on the new vests. Someone described it as a car airbag. It works once and then has to be replaced. Whether it's a 10 mph Rosen or a 60 mph Rosen. 174038[/snapback] Given what I know of ceramics (a little), it makes sense. Steel plating or similar has enough elasticity to not have integrity compromised away from the impact spot. Ceramics are harder (in the materials science sense)...they might resist impact, but the shock carries through the entire plate and compromises the integrity. I'm kind of surprised they weren't able to work around it, even within the weight limitations, as the hardness vs. elasticity problem in armor is an old and, for vehicles, not unsolved one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Given what I know of ceramics (a little), it makes sense. Steel plating or similar has enough elasticity to not have integrity compromised away from the impact spot. Ceramics are harder (in the materials science sense)...they might resist impact, but the shock carries through the entire plate and compromises the integrity. I'm kind of surprised they weren't able to work around it, even within the weight limitations, as the hardness vs. elasticity problem in armor is an old and, for vehicles, not unsolved one. 174172[/snapback] I haven't seen the new plating they also tested last year and are putting on vehicles now. But the old stuff was heavy and think. And too be honest I only ever saw it on a few vehicles (general's humvee). Most folks in the Corps , used sandbags on the floor, hood, roof, etc... Of course, this was the Corps, not the privledged folks in the Army and the Army reserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I haven't seen the new plating they also tested last year and are putting on vehicles now. But the old stuff was heavy and think. And too be honest I only ever saw it on a few vehicles (general's humvee). Most folks in the Corps , used sandbags on the floor, hood, roof, etc... Of course, this was the Corps, not the privledged folks in the Army and the Army reserve. 174181[/snapback] I'm surprised our resident "paramilitary expert" hasn't seen and commented on any of the photos out there of LAVs/Strykers armored with bedsprings. I mean, how incompetent is Rumsfeld anyway, that the soldiers in Iraq have so little confidence in their vehicles that even bedsprings are an improvement in their armor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I'm surprised our resident "paramilitary expert" hasn't seen and commented on any of the photos out there of LAVs/Strykers armored with bedsprings. I mean, how incompetent is Rumsfeld anyway, that the soldiers in Iraq have so little confidence in their vehicles that even bedsprings are an improvement in their armor... 174215[/snapback] Do you know why they do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Do you know why they do that? 174237[/snapback] Of course. Disrupts HEAT rounds. As I think about it, in fact...though I'm no expert, I know far more about armor and defeating it than is truly psychologically healthy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 You two need help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 You two need help. 174401[/snapback] I just finished reading about the mid-life upgrade to the RAF Tornado GR.1 fleet... Me? Sane? Nah... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 I just finished reading about the mid-life upgrade to the RAF Tornado GR.1 fleet... Me? Sane? Nah... 174426[/snapback] Who am I to talk, I just put down a Bob Woodward and splashed a Yak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 I'm surprised our resident "paramilitary expert" hasn't seen and commented on any of the photos out there of LAVs/Strykers armored with bedsprings. I mean, how incompetent is Rumsfeld anyway, that the soldiers in Iraq have so little confidence in their vehicles that even bedsprings are an improvement in their armor... 174215[/snapback] Actually those are Slinkys, not bedsprings. Neither meet milspec though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 What an hypocritical, lying ass. May he rot in hell for the families who have been devastated, and are about to be torn to their very souls this Christmas, for starting a war without reason, or end. 172712[/snapback] You're disgusting !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Just one Soldier's opinion, from the Syracuse paper this morning which I pass on without comment other than that I hope it is all worth it and over sooner rather than later. To the Editor: In March 2003, I was ordered to go to Iraq to "be all I can be" and fight for my country like other soldiers in the U.S. Army. Besides being in Iraq for one year for no reason, there was another thing that annoyed my fellow soldiers and me. That was the way President Bush used the word "we" when he talked about the sacrifices that soldiers are making, extending our stay in wartime and the reason we were there. The sacrifices that soldiers are making in Iraq are being tainted every time Bush talks about it using "we." The president is not the one who is losing his wife, children and dog to some other man named "Jodie" at home. He is not the one missing the first breath of a firstborn or the last breath of a soldier, mom or dad. When I was in Iraq, I was working 16-hour shifts due to the lack of troops and the level of untrained personnel that deployed with me. About 75 percent of the soldiers had only two sets of uniforms for the first six months. Imagine trying to wash your body with three bottles of water and having to wash your uniforms day in and day out. At least it was easy to dry my uniforms in 115-degree weather. A great percentage of the soldiers did not have a bullet-proof vest. Therefore, we had to try to find pieces of metal that would fit in our vests in order to have more protection. We also had to find sand bags for our vehicles. These are some of the things that happen to soldiers in wartime, while the president is sitting at home saying "we" did this and that. Extending the stay of a soldier in wartime is one of the worst things for a soldier's morale because we are the ones sleeping in a sandbox while Bush is in Washington cruising through four more years. I was stuck in Iraq for only one year while other soldiers are there for much longer. One and a half, two years or more is what our troops are now facing. The Reservists and National Guard are getting abused out there. They are undertrained and underpaid waiting for that "one weekend a month and two weeks a year." One week before I was supposed to leave Iraq, I received orders (stop-loss policy) to stay in Iraq for three more months. That was one of the saddest days in my life. I have never felt like hurting people for no reason like I did that day. So I can understand why soldiers may start to lose it in wartime, when someone is 4,000 miles away messing with your life and you are left out there powerless. So, how can Bush talk about family and unity when soldiers are kept in war even after they have served? The president should ask himself: Why are U.S. troops in Iraq? Because we, the soldiers, are the ones living the everyday, never-ending hell. Soldiers and people dying, a great amount of oil, but still we have not found any weapons of mass destruction. When you ask a soldier who has been living in Iraq for a year why he is there in front of a camera, he might reply that it is to make Iraqi people free. But when he is out of the spotlight, his anger, pain and hate will come flying out like it does in his everyday Iraqi life. The way the president uses "we" when he talks about the soldiers' sacrifices, the separation from their families and why our troops are in Iraq really brings down our troops' morale. President Bush is not the one on guard duty thinking about his family in a distant place. Now we know that the meaning of "we" for the president is a soldier, another soldier, or other soldiers, but the term does not include him. "We" the soldiers are the ones fighting the war while Bush keeps saying "we" when he is actually sitting at home. Edwar A Uceta Espinal Liverpool 168827[/snapback] I'm pretty anti-Bush, but I don't believe he's refering to himself, but to America. I agree, though. The war was a mistake, and now we are stuck there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts