Better body armor could have prevented Iraq deaths

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by latehorn, Jan 7, 2006.

  1. #1
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- An unreleased Pentagon study of fatal torso wounds to Marines killed in Iraq found that most might have been prevented or minimized if they had been wearing improved body armor.

    The study last summer by the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner looked at 93 fatal wounds from the start of the war in March 2003 through June 2005 and concluded that 74 of them were bullet or shrapnel wounds to shoulders or areas of the torso not protected by ceramic armor plating.

    The findings underscore the difficulty facing the Army and Marine Corps in providing the optimum level of body armor protection in a war against an insurgency whose tactics are constantly changing. Both the Army and the Marine Corps have weighed the expected payoff in additional safety from extra armor against the measurable loss of combat effectiveness from too much armor.

    "In response to the changing battlefield conditions and as new technologies emerge, the Army continues to develop improvements to soldier protection equipment to enhance survivability and mobility," said Army spokesman Paul Boyce.

    Boyce said he could not discuss details but said U.S. soldiers' body armor is the best in the world.

    "We take operational security very seriously and will not discuss in public sensitive issues that may render any insight to the enemy about our capabilities, fielding plans or tactics, techniques and procedures," he added.

    According to a summary of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's study obtained by The Associated Press on Friday evening, the 93 Marines who died from a primary lethal injury of the torso were among 401 Marines who died from combat injuries in Iraq between the start of the war and last June.

    Autopsy reports and photographic records were analyzed to help the military determine possible body armor redesign. A military advocacy group, Soldiers for Truth, posted an article about the study on its Web site this week. On Friday evening, The New York Times reported in its online edition that the study for the first time shows the cost in lives lost from inadequate armor.

    The study found that of 39 fatal torso wounds in which the bullet or shrapnel entered the Marine's body outside of the ceramic armor plate that protects the chest and back, 31 were close to the plate's edge.

    "Either a larger plate or superior protection around the plate would have had the potential to alter the final outcome," the study concluded.

    link
     
    latehorn, Jan 7, 2006 IP
  2. Crazy_Zap

    Crazy_Zap Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,342
    Likes Received:
    305
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    170
    #2
    Not invading, in the first place. That would have prevented a lot of deaths too.
     
    Crazy_Zap, Jan 7, 2006 IP
  3. blackbug

    blackbug Peon

    Messages:
    1,002
    Likes Received:
    89
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3
    Do you have an opinion on the subject or are you just trying to start an arguement?

    Less people would suffer back problems if they bought better shoes.

    Good. They've analysed the situation. Let's see what they do about it.
     
    blackbug, Jan 7, 2006 IP
  4. latehorn

    latehorn Guest

    Messages:
    4,676
    Likes Received:
    238
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    Why not invading it and getting zero combat casualties instead?
     
    latehorn, Jan 8, 2006 IP
  5. latehorn

    latehorn Guest

    Messages:
    4,676
    Likes Received:
    238
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #5
    I think that we would get rid of silly complains from the left if casualties were decreased.
     
    latehorn, Jan 8, 2006 IP