Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Marines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Unusual choice of body armour for Afghan based Marines
TriggaFingaz    9/17/2004 6:17:38 PM
In the latest Soldier of Fortune (October 04), the cover and inside article'Two Days in Hell' shows men of 1/6 Marines in Afghanistan wearing this body armour: The unusual armor is worn over their DCU tunics which are oddly tucked into their trousers rather than left out- this negates use of the upper DCU's lower pockets doesn't it? Can anyone give their views on why this minimal plate is being worn instead of Interceptor vests? Is it to make the Marines move faster since travelling light in such a region is more important than heavy protection????
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
NoSolace    RE:Unusual choice of body armour for Afghan based Marines   9/30/2004 11:17:51 PM
Yeah I saw that armor and was kinda suprised myself. I would have expected better. My guess is that it's simply an issue of funding, supplying, and fielding the equipment. The plates alone are no doubt cheaper and easier to get quickly in mass quantities. But it upsets me that the leadership would cut corners on soldiers safety like that. Bummer.
Quote    Reply

towgunner1960    RE:Unusual choice of body armour for Afghan based Marines   10/1/2004 1:48:47 AM
I subscribe to sof also and noticed the body armor. I think the plates will stop at least 7.62x39. Probably worn like that for lightness and manueverability. In other issues of sof they show marines in Iraq with the good stuff. I used to be a police officer and had a level 2 and a level 3 vest. Friday and Saturday nights, or when trouble was brewing the 3 went on. Any other time I wore the 2 because it was adequate and was a hell of a lot more comfortable. Also there is less of a threat in Afghanistan and some very rough and high terrain to navigate. Did you notice the lack of acog and other sights on the M-16s ? That has me more concerned, because of the longer ranges involved and they are clearly superior to peep sights alone...
Quote    Reply