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

2016-05-09T16:52:51-04:00

With todays Gear Sets and weight of combat loads, we should look at more practical Armor, what are your thoughts

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made May 9 at 2016 5:00 PM

2016-05-09T17:00:54-04:00

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."

Response by SSG Daniel Deiler made May 9 at 2016 5:01 PM

2016-05-09T17:01:49-04:00

I thought that WAS the standard. I know when I was in 1/66 AR they received both the IOTV and plate carrier along with their ACH and MICH helmets.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made May 9 at 2016 5:37 PM

2016-05-09T17:37:41-04:00

Hell what is an MICH helmet?

Response by SSG Ricardo Marcial made May 9 at 2016 5:40 PM

2016-05-09T17:40:21-04:00

No, that would make them individuals, and besides, they really like to spend tax dollars on crap that fits wrong, does not blend with the surroundings. Uniformity......I can just hear the 1SG asking joe why he looks different for the rest of the Co or BN.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 9 at 2016 7:41 PM

2016-05-09T19:41:46-04:00

MCH helmets are pointless. They don't stop bullets. The new ECH does. Similar fit and shape. Marine ground units get plate carriers. Doesn't matter though. They make the plates heavier and add more crap I don't want anyway so the weight is about the same.

Response by SSG Chris Cherry made May 10 at 2016 7:59 AM

2016-05-10T07:59:12-04:00

The purpose behind the IOTV was to mitigate blast injuries sustained from IEDs. I plate carrier offers, essentially, zero protection to the throat, abdomen, lower back/spine, and underarms. Plate carriers are great and I was glad I had mine, but the reasoning behind the IOTV was sound.

Response by LTC Marc King made May 10 at 2016 11:32 AM

2016-05-10T11:32:25-04:00

SSG David Winkler: You pose the question that makes its way around the Pentagon in an endless loop. The weight of combat loads has been and continues to be a priority for all of those responsible for individual soldier effectiveness on the battlefield. That said there are questions regarding the issue and wearing of individual safety items (body armor and helmets) that merit attention and understanding of where we are, were we have been and were we are going on these items. So the story goes like this... The PM Soldier guys will come to the field and ask the question "Is the body armor to heavy and would you like it to lighter?" The answer is intuitive of course we would lie lighter body armor. Now... If I inform you that the body armor could be made lighter but it would not give you the same level of protection as the heavier solution you might just respond differently. In fact I have had the opportunity through my corporate career to address this question to soldiers and marines many times and the answer is not surprising -- if lighter means less protection I will take the protection. So we ask..."Why is that important?" If you are aware of the statistics that have come out of almost 13 years of continuous combat in Afghanistan and Iraq then you know the following: After 13 years the number of KIA's stands at around 6,800. Now compare that number to the number of casualties recorded for the Viet Nam war at about 58,000 and you can get a sense of what the technology has brought to the battlefield. Its not all body armor... the advances in medicine also play a role in the numbers. However, I would also add that the most startling statistic of all, as reported by JTAPIC (the medical organization that studies battlefield wounds of all KIA's to learn how to prevent/treat them in the future) is that there are no recorded cases of a soldier or marine having been killed by the penetration of their body armor by a bullet that the armor was designed to defeat. Now before someone jumps in here to tell me I'm wrong and they know a guy... There are many stories that circulate through the services, some of them are true many are "war stories" that take on a believability but in fact they are a "fairy tale". The difference is easy to spot; the Fairy Tale starts with the phrase "once upon a time..." while the War Story starts... "Now this is no s**t" but I digress. The focus of this discussion is the weight of the body armor. So why does it weigh what it weighs? Because it has been carefully designed to defeat all of the know and in some cases the postulated threats (Bullets) that you as a warrior will encounter on the battlefield. And when I say carefully designed I can assure you that not other piece of equipment that you are wearing on your person has been tested to the level of performance as has your body armor. There is a trade off going on in the industry and it is import to understand what is being done to make the armor lighter and still have it provide the protection that you need. And you do need it. Even if it is uncomfortable at times. The issue is welfare and not comfort... just ask your significant other or your mother. He or she will tell you the difference. So Industry has had 13 years to work on this challenge and they have been working very hard to provide a solution. But much like the old game of rock, paper, scissors every time there is an advancement made in lighter weight body armor materials there is an advancement made in better bullets to defeat that armor. And that is how this "game" is played. PM Soldier is trying to get in front of these issues and find solutions but it is an arduous task at best. That said there are advances being made but for the sake of full disclosure it must be understood that the advances are evolutionary and not revolutionary so the changes that are being offered are relatively small changes -- but they are the best that industry has to offer... at this time.
The issue of the IOTV or the plate carrier is another debate that can go on ad-infanitum. While to IOTV does offer more protection it weighs more that the plate carrier which was developed and fielded for the warriors that had to hump the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. it was not intended to be the principle outer layer of protection for the force. Its widely accepted and worn because it is lighter but as one response to this post has already pointed out there is a lot more body parts exposed with the carrier vice the IOTV.
The issue of the MICH helmet is another example of War Story drama and not understanding the equipment that you have been provided. The MICH and the ACH are really the same helmet with a slightly different design. If you look at them side by side you will see that the MICH has had the ear protection part of the helmet eliminated and rear of the helmet shorted a bit so as not get pushed forward in the prone position.. This was done to accommodate the requirements that were being asked for by the Special Operators -- the rational being you could hear better in an all around situation. Does it matter... They thought so and they got what they requested. There is no evidence that it provides a hearing advantage over the ACH except for the radio operator who might be using a hand set making it easier to get the piece to the ear. In terms of ballistic performance the MICH, ACH, Light Weight/LWACH (in production) and the Marine Corps LWH all have the same level of protection. The LWACH has reduced the weight on average 4oz. over the ACH.

So in closing I would say that the matter of "practical" body armor is not one that can be simply addressed by saying make it lighter. The practical solution is the one that will keep the most important asset we have "the fighting men and women" of this country alive to fight another day.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 12:02 PM

2016-05-10T12:02:47-04:00

I've always preferred to be as light and agile as I can on the battlefield. I'll take lighter and less bulky versus more protection every day of the week.

Response by SFC David Davenport made May 10 at 2016 1:41 PM

2016-05-10T13:41:12-04:00

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.

Response by SFC John Hill made May 10 at 2016 5:40 PM

2016-05-10T17:40:48-04:00

There are a lot of factors that have to be considered and tested before an armor is selected. Unfortunately, there is no one type that fits all situations. Common criteria would include, ballistic protection, performance in hot/cold/wet environments (some products will shatter when frozen), weight, MANPRINT, ergonomics, procurement/life cycle strategies, cost, etc. What usually will be selected is the one that can meet the widest range of requirements/ capabilities for said item.

Response by SGT Joseph Alanzo made May 10 at 2016 5:47 PM

2016-05-10T17:47:27-04:00

YES YES AND YES

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 13 at 2016 11:50 AM

2016-05-13T11:50:40-04:00

YES we all should get that stuff.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2018 1:12 PM

2018-07-26T13:12:04-04:00

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.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2018 7:30 AM

2018-12-28T07:30:32-05:00

There is a trade off between weight and protection. Added Kevlar increases effectiveness of the armor and adds weight and increases survivability. Decreased weight allows for more mobility, decreased fatigue, and lower stress on your body. I’ve worn both and love the crye 2.0 jumpable carriers. The real question should be can we transition to some of the lighter weight plates now available on the market...

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2019 10:01 AM

2019-11-07T10:01:21-05:00

Operations Division. Combat Arms hasnt been a phrase for quite a few years now.

Equipment should be given based on MOS and mission. Armored crewmembers dont need the lightweight stuff, ADA typically doesnt need it either. Light Infantry, Cavalry, and SOF do because they carry everything, they dont have an armored vehicle or static positions (usually) to fight from, hence they are fine with more protective, heavier gear. The plate carrier was brought in for mobility and mountain ops, not just because its lighter. It's a tradeoff, weight vs protection.
Sure the PC is comfier, but you're not as protected as the alternatives. There are reasons for all decisions, as much as we may disagree or hate those decisions. Money is a big one, and being able to save money by only buying enough gear for those who need it is a means to save it. We even deal with it in SOF, only those who require Patagonia uniforms and Ops Corps helmets get em, it's not a free for all. $240 per pair of pants is a lot, so its limited to a need to have basis.