Shall SAF allow non-issued armor?
-
If Sg go to conflict and u guys find the issued armor not
good,shall SAF allow non-issued armor subject to certain
requirement,ie comuflage ,protective level etc.
Corps Restricts Non-Issued Armor Use,Military.com | By Christian Lowe |2007 April 19, 2007The Marine Corps issued a directive Tuesday restricting the use of store-bought personal protective equipment in the war zone, including body armor, ballistic glasses, armor plates and fire-retardant clothing.
--http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,132837,00.html?ESRC=dod-b.nl
Corps officials say Marines may not use such protective equipment in place of gear issued by service. Marines are free to buy and wear their own safety equipment - including body armor- officials explained, but they must also use their issued items and will not be reimbursed for their purchase.
The Army issued a similar message in March of 2006 after controversy erupted over claims that a certain type of body armor vest designed by Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor was more effective than service-issued Interceptor vests. But for more than a year, the Corps declined to follow suit.
Read the Marine Corps Directive here.(pl go to the linked article)
The so-called "Dragon Skin" vest - which was among the armor banned by the Army - uses interlocking ceramic disks that videos on Pinnacle's Web site claim can absorb multiple AK-47 rounds and 9mm shots without penetration.
The current enhanced small arms protective plate can absorb a small number of high-velocity AK-47 rounds before failure.
"In its current state of development, Dragon Skin's capabilities do not meet Army requirements," the Army's March 17, 2006, "safety of use message" states. "In fact, Dragon Skin has not been certified by the Army for protection against several small-arms threats being encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan today."
"Although this message specifically identifies Dragon Skin, it applies to other commercially available body armor products (such as commercial police vests) that are not Army approved and issued," it added.
At the time, the Marine Corps declined to go along with the Army's ban, saying they preferred to have Marines wear Corps-issued vests but would not issue a formal restriction.
But on April 17, Marine officials reversed their stance, restricting the use of personal protective equipment - including body armor - to those items issued by the Corps.
"Individual Marines [and] Sailors may not use commercial PPE in lieu of government tested, approved and issued PPE," the message states. "Individually-purchased commercial PPE will not be reimbursed by command [or] unit funds."
The message is unclear whether Marines who continue to wear their own protective gear will be disciplined, but the Army has said Soldiers could face disciplinary action if they defy the ban.
"If Soldiers are doing this, they're doing it at their own risk," a top Army acquisition official said announcing last year's ban. "But I can tell you Army Soldiers, at this point in time, based upon the safety of use message that was sent out, are prohibited at this point in time from wearing it - it's a command requirement to basically take care of that."
The marketing and manufacture of after-market military equipment has become a booming business since 9-11, with companies selling a wide range of glasses, goggles, vests and uniforms that troops often find more comfortable and customizable than military-issued gear.
The services have moved in recent months to alleviate concerns over comfort and fit of body armor and other protective equipment, with both the Army and Marine Corps replacing their Interceptor vests with new designs. Soldiers and Marines have also been issued a variety of modern protective equipment through "rapid equipping" and "urgent needs" initiatives.
The Corps' announcement gives some leeway to Marines and their commanders to use non-issued PPE gear, but only "as long as those additions do not interfere with the functionality of approved PPE." Moreover, Marine commanders may not use any funds to purchase unit-specific gear that has not been government-tested and approved for use by the Corps.
The policy also allows Marines to reduce the amount of protective equipment they wear based on the threat and a commander's requirements.
During their deployment to Afghanistan in 2004, for example, leathernecks with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit were authorized to wear plate-carriers in lieu of their full body armor vests given the minimal blast threat where they were operating and to reduce weight in the rugged, high-altitude terrain.
"Commanders who determine that a lower level of PPE is appropriate must receive approval from their respective [Marine] or [joint] commander prior to execution of any change," the Marine message said.
Related Links:
New Army Armor
Dragon Skin: Proven Tough?
Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.
2. this logo is sure not allowed at the back of ur armor: -
+1 for another useless topic by lionnoisy.
Non-issued armor so easy to find and buy in Singapore ah?
Singapore law allows you to Fed-Ex armour over ah?
The average Singaporean conscript grunt even knows the levels of ballistic protection ah?
The more important question I believe is... shall we allow more silly threads by lionnoisy? -
Bad english, Lionnoisy. Its "Will" not "Shall"?
Super power's army and marines already dun allow liaoz, u say leh? -
-
I wonder what's next? He's going to accuse the Aussie troops of using defective body armour because it cannot stop RPG rounds?
+1 -
"shall" the Estonia allow non-issued "armor"? (ps: armor is AMERICAN spelling)
If Es go to conflict and they guys find the issued armor not
good,shall Maavägi allow non-issued armor subject to certain
requirement,ie comuflage ,protective level etc.
(what on earth is "co-mu-flage"??) 
Hmm, looks like they use standard body armour as well...
2. this logo is sure not allowed at the back of ur armor:
+1 -
A better question to ask is : "Why do stupid people exist?"
-
-
tio owned!
-
+1 hahaha
-
+1 too ~
-
2.how many will pardon my poor English?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:"shall" the Estonia allow non-issued "armor"? (ps: armor is AMERICAN spelling)
If Es go to conflict and they guys find the issued armor not
good,shall Maavägi allow non-issued armor subject to certain
requirement,ie comuflage ,protective level etc.
(what on earth is "co-mu-flage"??)....
How many will pardon YOU by covering my meaningful postings
by your quote and quote and irrelevant postings in
Downsides of Down under?
your actions reflect your maturity and the MODS are too busy
to take note of your actions.
3.But anyway,thanks for correcting my English.
This save me money to get PSLE English tutitions!!
4.Do write to your frens and relative in Aussie
save water,this can mean save life..... -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
2.how many will pardon my poor English?
Downsides of Down under?
your actions reflect your maturity and the MODS are too busy
to take note of your actions.
Yawn, maybe I try typing in your kind of "English".
the MODS never do anything not because they are too busy but because nobody sypanthic to your cause! In fact, I told a mod about your thread and he replied that such a thread wasn't worth anybody's time.
So he shall allow more interesting post on Estonia! Whill this shall make for feeling unbearable in your belly as your tiny post are swallow up!
Anyway your postings on Aussie are boring, so now people want to know bout Es!How many will pardon YOU by covering my meaningful postings
Judge by popular reaction... everybody pardon!
by your quote and quote and irrelevant postings in
But maybe it shall because of your postings actually have no meaningful and irrelevant while mine greatly funny and relevant and make for good feeling in belly!3.But anyway,thanks for correcting my English.
[/b][/quote]
This save me money to get PSLE English tutitions!!
4.Do write to your frens and relative in Aussie
save water,this can mean save life.....
3. Orh, you PSLE English also cannot ah, is it any wonder you are partial crippled and blind in here? No wonder you can't even post more then 77 letter of the post without making the crucial mistake!
Which first class froumer allow himself to do that?
4. "frens" and relative in Aussie know better then us what to do, no need you to chap, in fact "shall" you be getting PSLE English tutions??!! -
hei... i ve seen an election campaign ad about that body armor. The man actually shows the diff by firing an AK into one (that was aprove by the senator to Iraq) and another by the rejected suplier / manufacturer.
the result was obvious.
but i dont think SAF will introduce cheap body armor to its soldier. What for? -
If this is going to increase tax again, maybe...
-
Certainly not for lionnoisy to make his posts, I wonder if he even knows how to read the English operating instructions on his body armour, let alone judge if it's "subject to certain requirement ,ie comuflage ,protective level etc." works.Originally posted by tankfanatic:hei... i ve seen an election campaign ad about that body armor. The man actually shows the diff by firing an AK into one (that was aprove by the senator to Iraq) and another by the rejected suplier / manufacturer.
the result was obvious.
but i dont think SAF will introduce cheap body armor to its soldier. What for?
Some people still like Dragon Skin thou. -
So he shall allow more interesting post on Estonia! Whill this shall make for feeling unbearable in your belly as your tiny post are swallow up!
you make typo mistake too, cant you forgive other people typo mistake? cheers. -
anyway i dont think its an issue with SAF. If theres a better armour the soldier will get it. If the body armor doesnt work the gov will surely sue lei... and get more money some more. No worry lah.
-
waht maek yuo tihnk i meak taht tyop accdentiatily?Originally posted by tankfanatic:you make typo mistake too, cant you forgive other people typo mistake? cheers.
or is it to delillberate 2 sedn a messager that silyl topcis by anit-aussie guis r nod apperciateriated? -
ST, dont nitpick lar, bad karma.
Regarding armour. Yes, no matter what, there will be reduction in body (torso) injuries with issued BA. However, the number of limb injuries is going to still hurt heh.
Getting shot in the arm / leg ...ack. Hope it would be a flesh wound and dont hit my bones. -
Lol, I think if karma is at work, then lionnoisy is simply getting what he sowed:Originally posted by CM06:ST, dont nitpick lar, bad karma.
Regarding armour. Yes, no matter what, there will be reduction in body (torso) injuries with issued BA. However, the number of limb injuries is going to still hurt heh.
Getting shot in the arm / leg ...ack. Hope it would be a flesh wound and dont hit my bones.
Since he nitpick other people and so happy about it, now he kenna nitpick for his own dirt. Maybe now he know he "shall also be partial blind and crippled" with bad "comuflage".
I hold little remorse for the mockery he has recieved, he indeed deserves much more.
Anyway, back to BA. Unless you are wearing the Halo suit that some guy invented recently, your limbs are always in danger... but of course all armour will always have their weak areas. -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
my [b]meaningful postings[/b]
Tee hee.
Heh.
*deep breath*
Irrelevant, disjointed, confused, meandering, vague, irrational, miscombolulated even, but meaningful?!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -
Issuing of Body Armour in SAF context.
Depends on the Mission under taken, and the Forces conducting the Operation.
I.e.
1) The Evacuation of Singapore National and their Dependencies from Cambodia, in 1997. Allowed International Press to see 1st hand, what was the state of Protection that our forces are equip with.
2) NDP parades, Army Public Domain Publications, also show off the units that have such Protections suite as part of their SOP.
3) Unexplained public release of Mindef Photos e.g BXII 42 SAR photos, hinted of more to come, in term of Body Armour.
Coming from an Un-baggaged Point of View
Don't know what lionnoisy did, and don't care.
When the needs araise. Doubt that SAF Soldiers of today wouldn't know about the Various "Protection Level" of Body Armour. (I.e people not going to Army, will not know/care much about the BMT Fitness requirement)
Use Authorized Equipment Only
If the Person is able to obtain his/her own protection scheme.
It is Strongly Recommended to use the System adopted by the SAF for that Unit. Not for a Logistic point of view, but For a Moral purpose.
The American Move, is long over due. A Private Solider wearing different Protection Armour, may attract the laughter from his/her mates.
But When a Commander uses such Protection, doubts of the issued Armour Will be Raised. Soldier below that Commander, may think, why is he issued with one Armour, and the Commander wearing another.
In SG
Ps it's illegal to obtained Ballistic Resistance Clothing, without a license in SG. But this does not mean that it cannot be obtained.
Question: Ever wonder why SG is able to response so quickly and decisively to the varied problems faced?
Asking Questions, tackling solving the problem before it happen.
Broken Clock is correct twice a day. -
+1
lol -
In SG
The issue is how you are going to obtain non standard issue armour, on an individual basis or unit level? Are your parents going to buy it and send it to you just like what happened in Iraq?
Ps it's illegal to obtained Ballistic Resistance Clothing, without a license in SG. But this does not mean that it cannot be obtained.
Chances are I just don't see it happening with us, given our kind of culture.
Getting vests under the table by unit is a possibility, but the main issue is SAF culture... who wants to do the red tape? Who knows?
But from all indications our current vests will work, and work well.
