Quick told-you-so on body armor
Back in August, I wrote that the armored-Humvee controversy and the body-armor controversy were lacking a bit of perspective because 1. The costs associated with armoring every vehicle are astronomical and 2. Troops only tolerate so much extra gear.
Well, today the AP reports that plenty of Marines wish they didn't have to wear so much damn body armor.
Well, today the AP reports that plenty of Marines wish they didn't have to wear so much damn body armor.
posted by bp at
12:06 PM
2 Comments:
back when the media was bitching about this , lots of military types were pointing out the obvious fact that more armor meant less mobility. sometimes you want one, sometimes you want the other. someone could ask the french at agincourt.
By
Miguel Centellas, at 9:10 PM
A very good point. And I should point out it was Miguel who prodded me to post more about this subject.
And I do think some of the hoopla was perhaps warranted - in some cases, troops didn't even have the option of wearing the gear. My big problem was what seemed to be some assuptions on the side of the media and politicians that the more armor, the better. It didn't seem that too many talking heads were asking people in Iraq what they thought.
By
bp, at 2:35 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home