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

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 May 2016 16:52:51 -0400

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

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 May 2016 17:00:54 -0400

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

SSG Daniel Deiler — Mon, 09 May 2016 17:01:49 -0400

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

SGT Bryon Sergent — Mon, 09 May 2016 17:37:41 -0400

Hell what is an MICH helmet?

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

SSG Ricardo Marcial — Mon, 09 May 2016 17:40:21 -0400

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

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 May 2016 19:41:46 -0400

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

SSG Chris Cherry — Tue, 10 May 2016 07:59:12 -0400

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

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 May 2016 12:02:47 -0400

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

SFC David Davenport — Tue, 10 May 2016 13:41:12 -0400

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

SFC John Hill — Tue, 10 May 2016 17:40:48 -0400

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

SGT Joseph Alanzo — Tue, 10 May 2016 17:47:27 -0400

YES YES AND YES

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

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:50:40 -0400

YES we all should get that stuff.

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

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:12:04 -0400

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

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Dec 2018 07:30:32 -0500

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

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Nov 2019 10:01:21 -0500

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.