35
35
0
There has been debate for years whether side SAPI plates are detrimental to certain injuries in the field. I imagine most argue that they’re good because hell, more body armor.I have treated multiple cases of shrapnel and GSW wounds where projectiles have entered the body through or under the arm above the SAPI and ricocheted around in the patient’s body off of the SAPI plate. Thoughts?
Medical
Combat
Combat Medic
Medicine
Line Corpsman
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 34
LT (Join to see) I do not have a purple heart because of a side SAPI plate... So I vote keep them
(21)
(0)
MSG Johnathan Mathes
Thing SGM hits a hr here.. think it’s important to realize.. just how far we have come over the years... while it’s catastrophic when it does enter.. I knew a lt in Afghanistan that it saved three different times.. I’m pretty sure if we had a better sampleing of of hits and saves vs hits and hurts .. we would see it’s a lot better.. body armor is only good if worn and correctly... it’s never going to be liked.. but a little inconvenience is always better than a life time of preventable worlds or losing your life....
(1)
(0)
MSG Frank Kapaun
A Purple Heart gets you an extra 15 points if you apply to work at the post office.
(1)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
MSG Frank Kapaun - I will happily overcome the point deficit vice the "earned" points from a PH
(0)
(0)
15
15
0
I can't say I've really seen much debate. Not getting penetrated by small bits of lead is usually a good thing.
(15)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
Yeah fair enough - so where do you draw the line? Guy in WW2 had a German sniper bullet enter the helmet, get caught between helmet and liner and do the same ricochet, causing (in the medic's eyes...) more damage than if it had just penetrated. So due to a fluke, do we demand that liners be thrown away? No one did, strangely enough...
More armor is always better.
More armor is always better.
(3)
(0)
LT (Join to see)
Thank you for your input! I do understand there are outliers. I’m not sure if anyone is demanding that side plates be rendered obsolete. I’m sure different circumstances dictate different set ups as well. In 2016 I deployed and in the same platoon, different marines wore different plate carriers. Vehicle mounted marines would wear side plates while marines in “ close quarters ” would not for fear of shrapnel coming up from the ground bouncing off the plates and causing more damage. Again thanks for the input. I tend to agree more armor is normally better.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
PO3 Donald Murphy - I get your point, however, I don't necessarily think that "more armor is always better." Armor has a point of diminishing returns in terms of maneuverability, speed, and endurance on the Soldier. It has to be a balance of protection while maintaining a decent level in all of the other areas.
(3)
(0)
SGT Tony Clifford
I do think there is so room for debate. Armor, especially ridged plates limit flexibility and add weight. We could cover soldier in full ballistic plate armor like a knight, but we don't for many reasons. Every piece of kit you put on has benefits and negatives. You have to weight the pros and cons. Does the side plate offer significantly more protection? Yes. Does it impact mobility? Yes. Is the trade off worth it? Depends on who you ask.
(1)
(0)
11
11
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google