Should Plate Carriers and Mich Helmets be the Standard issue body Armor for Combat Arms?

Yes we should be looking at ways to reduce combat loads! The injuries sustained from long-term use of heavy loads costs money in disability payments at the end of military careers. If we spent just a portion of that money up front to reduce combat loads, there would be less injuries. I wrote about Human Universal Load Carrier (HULC) back in 2011. From their website, "Dismounted warfighters often carry heavy combat loads that increase the stress on the body leading to potential injuries. With a HULC exoskeleton, these heavy loads are transferred to the ground through powered titanium legs without loss of mobility."

While the debate of IOTV vs plate carrier will always be around, the biggest arguement always posed is “the IOTV covers more the the plate carrier so it must be safer.”
But no one takes into consideration, that whether you are wearing a plate carrier or IOTV, you plate size is still the same...
The IOTV covers more due to the ballistic soft armor that will not do a damn thing besides MAYBE stopping minor shrapnel, and my shoulder will prove that.
Plate carriers need to be issued to anyone in combat arms MOS’s. Keep the gen 3/4 IOTV around for the POG’s and give us the plate carriers so we can effectively do our job with more mobility and comfort.

Honestly the real answer is you should get the piece of equipment that best meets your needs for your assigned mission. I personally preferred a plate carrier for what I was doing while deployed. It was a better choice and kept my dismounted combat load down to about 84 lbs. of gear. For someone on a more mobile mission using vehicles a higher percentage of time the IOTV likely would have been a better choice. To be blunt the choice of one or the other with no context is not good question in my opinion.