Start-up may revolutionize fit of body armor, other gear

Army Times — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:15:28 -0500

From: Army Times

With female soldiers moving toward more involved combat roles, the Army had to re-think body armor, particularly how to tailor it to the female form.

But that has become the tip of the iceberg: a new deal with a contractor could have a much wider range of applications through a profile of thousands of soldiers' body types allowing for all kinds of better-fitting gear.

Manhattan start-up Body Labs officially started its $825,000 two-year contract with the Army in September, and along with that will come data and modeling that could better outfit soldiers in the future. On Monday they unveiled a vision for the future, which includes a more scientific, analytic and efficient approach to sizing, starting with body armor.

"Our vision of the future is a soldier walks into basic training, the Army scans you with a body scanner, and you walk out with boots and helmet that fit you really well. Not custom made because that's too expensive, but that fit really well," said CEO and founder William O'Farrell. "I think they understand the broader need."

The contract includes access to scanning capabilities, data and analytic tools that could turn the Small-Medium-Large-XL continuum on its head. Brian Corner, a PhD and research anthropologist for the Army's Natick Soldier Systems Center, said in an email to Army Times that a lot of applications and analysis would become possible for the first time.

"Previously, we worked with standing manikins and only one or a few body shapes and sizes. Thus, the work done by Body Labs provides a much richer design and engineering environment," Corner said. "My opinion, and the Army may have a different opinion, is that the software capability provided by Body Labs will change fundamentally the design and engineering environment."

While female soldiers have already tested out new armor that adjusts for some differences from men's body shapes, this technology would further add to options and ways armor — and other gear — can become more comfortable and improve in its performance. Corner said key assumptions include a robust database and a fairly easy way to scan soldiers.

O'Farrell started the company with a trio of other founders from Brown University that include experts in computer science and other systems and other fields in the Max Plank Institute for Intelligent Systems. The company has accumulated a database of about 12,000 soldiers, half of them women, providing 3-D avatars that will give the Army a statistical understanding of the different body types and shapes, including how the body moves and shifts into different positions.

The company started in the last year but some of the group's research was funded by the Army as far back as 2009.

While the data and more varied body types addressed may increase the number of sizes, O'Farrell said, the more accurate understanding of the Army's population of body types will help to more comfortably outfit more soldiers with less waste in over-produced sizes.

"Small, medium and large don't address the 3-D shape of the body. Shapes of sizes will be much more accurate to fit the population that's targeted," said O'Farrell, an adjunct business professor at Columbia University.

In addition, Corner acknowledged another possible source of savings: testing new models on a representative, diverse array of body types can earlier catch design problems that might impair movements, among other fit concerns.

O'Farrell said the Army, in particular Natick, will have the ability to make the economic choices on the number of sizes to produce and the design of the vests — and whatever else the Army chooses to use the data to produce.

"The big picture is understanding the geometry of the human body. From there you connect to everything the body touches," O'Farrell said.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/tech/2014/12/10/female-soldiers-body-armor-body-labs-natick/20197983/

Response by SSG Jason Cherry made Dec 11 at 2014 10:23 AM

SSG Jason Cherry — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:23:49 -0500

I like the idea of a more tailored fit for gear. We have so many sizes and shapes, it makes it really difficult for some of us who are not cookie-cutter shaped to have gear that fits and protects as designed. The IBA and IOTV were particularly rough for me as I am not super broad chested AND I'm tall, so the size I needed to fit my chest was too short to cover my torso from top to bottom.

The size that would cover me top to bottom torso was too broad in the chest and I couldn't tighten it enough to fit properly either.

Response by CSM David Heidke made Dec 11 at 2014 10:49 AM

CSM David Heidke — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:49:24 -0500

Having been married to a Female Police Officer I know that ballistic body armor has to be tailored specifically for the female anatomy. If a female wears a male vest and gets shot, it may not work right and it could result in fatality.

Tailoring for female Soldiers is a smart move.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Dec 11 at 2014 11:05 AM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:05:08 -0500

I have been looking at Dragon Skin for years and thought it would be a much better product. We need armor that can form fit and protect, but also be lighter.

Maybe even find a way to apply Graphene into the standard uniform.

Details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Skin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene

Dragon Skin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dragon Skin is a type of ballistic vest formerly made by the now defunct company, Pinnacle Armor which filed Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in 2011. It is currently produced in Missoula, Montana by North American Development Group LLC. Its characteristic two-inch-wide circular discs overlap like scale armor, creating a flexible vest that allows a good range of motion and is intended to absorb a high number of hits compared with other military body...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2014 11:07 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:07:33 -0500

Wow, pretty neat advances coming to a Basic Combat Training site near you! This will also evaluate foot types and allow Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen to select more appropriate footwear for their type? The practice has largely gone away in recent years it would seem, or the service members do not recall their foot type.

Response by 1SG Frank Boynton made Dec 11 at 2014 11:16 AM

1SG Frank Boynton — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:16:31 -0500

It's about time. The civilian world has long known the differences in form and fit of a female. I suppose the military has also, but they've pretty much ignored it. I've worked with women in law enforcement, my daughter is an undercover narcotics agent, and having the proper gear that fits correctly is a must. When I was in the Army, uniforms were almost always ill fitting on a female frame. However, we didn't have body armor, we had flak vests, and they were never issued to women, but back then women didn't face the dangers of a battlefield like they do today. To give them equipment that doesn't fit, or function well on their frame is criminal. Why make it even tougher on them because you issue them gear that has been specifically developed for a man, and then expect them to perform to the same level. Give them the proper gear and than set your expectations high.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Dec 11 at 2014 11:16 AM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:16:46 -0500

This seems like a really impressive company, and its founder has been very successful with previous ventures. I wanted to learn more about this product and what they may have in mind for it, beyond what the Army Times article was focusing on. It's worth checking out their website http://www.bodylabs.com if you are keen on what this technology can do today and also evolve into in the years to come.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Dec 11 at 2014 11:38 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:38:26 -0500

This just makes way too much sense.

All bodies are shaped different, and the differences between the male and female body are glaringly clear. Ill-fitting armor means more deaths. No one wants that.

We are warriors, what we wear to war should be our best kit. Rather than tailoring individualizing and primping and perfecting our fancy outfits first, we should be doing it with the tools of our trade first, and our fancy trappings second.

A lifetime issue makes a fantastic amount of sense: "welcome to the Corps, here is your lifetime seabag issue" it could be customized, fitted and itemized. The SM would be responsible for maintaining and moving the gear at all times, including between duty stations (we already get a Pro-gear allowance). If the service upgrades or updates authorize a one-for one swap at the local issuing facility for that item. At separation, retirement or discharge the lifetime issue is turned in, any missing items are itemized and SMs may pay for them with cash or credit card. If SM is subject to disciplinary action and/or has poor credit or cash, wages are garnished to recover the cost. Repayment or cost re-coupment goes directly into the services' equipment budget rather than the current regime of going into the general fund.

Ideally this would even include weapons (but given how many people would disagree with me on that) I'll settle just for Seabag issue.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2014 2:02 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:50 -0500

It's a great idea, but the CO needs to understand that those are skinny men and women in bootcamp, and the body really doesn't stop growing until they are 21-22. In addition, feet may get wider if you are infantry or are in a job where you stand a lot, like MP or cook. My point is the recruit will never stay the same size they are in boot camp, maybe 1 in a 100 will, but all will morph into whatever the Army makes them, larger muscles, barrel chested, and even the cranium will grow...it will definitely grow if I am their NCO or PSG. We need to keep thst in mind.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2014 5:45 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:45:27 -0500

I think it is a great idea for both male and female soldiers, because the one size fits all doesn't fit everyone. I remember deploying with the IOTV and wearing it for the first six months of deployment, and I can tell you that there was no happy medium when it came to fitment. When we switched over to plate carries, it made wearing body armor way more comfortable.

Response by PO2 Corey Ferretti made Dec 12 at 2014 1:56 PM

PO2 Corey Ferretti — Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:56:29 -0500

This is pretty cool. Would of been nice to have gear that fit comfortably.

Response by SGT Charles Vernier made Dec 13 at 2014 3:32 AM

SGT Charles Vernier — Sat, 13 Dec 2014 03:32:33 -0500

Both in the MP Corps and as a civilian police officer soft body armor is custom fitted for both women and men. It's time that the Army shifts from the paradigm of "one size fits none" to gear that works for the soldier.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2014 4:06 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Dec 2014 04:06:26 -0500

They have been saying for years preventive medicine is cheaper and better than ambulatory care and ER. I think this is an example of developing a way to provide higher quality and better fitting equipment and uniforms that will offer better protection to troops would less likely cause injuries their bodies. I know that some people develop heel spurs from poor fitting boots. This leads to thousands of dollars in medical costs and could be prevented if the boots were of a better design.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Jun 17 at 2015 2:11 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:11:37 -0400

The more modular you can make the armor to fit individuals the better! NASA has been doing this with spacesuits for years, it's about time!

Also makes a lot of sense as a soldier's body can and should change over time... I know my shoulders got broader.

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Jun 17 at 2015 5:59 PM

1LT William Clardy — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:59:06 -0400

Not to bust anybody's bubble, but aren't we forgetting that soldiers' bodies change shape significantly, especially during basic training?

In other words, you really don't want to tailor equipment and uniforms too closely, or they won't fit comfortably after any period of significant weight gain or loss , or even just a significant change in muscle mass.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Jun 17 at 2015 10:05 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 22:05:18 -0400

If getting the equipment to fit right will help and assist the soldier in doing their job, then it's a step forward. I remember some boots I got!!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 10:10 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 22:10:08 -0400

It sounds like a solid concept and I look forward to seeing the results one day. That being said, it makes a little too much sense so the army must scrap it...

Response by SPC Dawn McDaniel, MBA, MPA, ACC made Jun 18 at 2015 2:34 PM

SPC Dawn McDaniel, MBA, MPA, ACC — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:34:48 -0400

I still find it ironic that the Army went with a company that is run by a man for female body armor. Too bad they weren't aware of FEMTAC, woman veteran owned female tactical gear company.

Not for nothing, but I'm pretty sure a woman veteran has a bit of insight to this wardrobe challenge.