More Reasons to Bash Bush

Earlier this month a Pentagon study was released which showed that 80% of combat deaths in Iraq could have been prevented with available armor that covers more of the body. More recently it was reported that soldiers who bought ore protective armor at their own expense would be denied death benefits. Interestingly, all of the outrage is from the left. It may be cruel of me but I suspect that the outraged are looking for justification to be anti-Bush rather than showing concern for the troops. What is really going on?

I'll address the second charge first.

The armor in question is called Dragon Skin. Rather than using large ceramic plates, it uses many smaller ones. This makes it flexible which in turn allows it to be wrapped around the body better, protecting more area.

So is it better? This is unclear. There is one account of a soldier being shot multiple times in the back and not even noticing until later. On the other hand, a military spokesman said that it is good for a knife fight but is not something you want to wear when you are being shot at. The military considers the standard issue armor to be superior.

It should also be pointed out that Dragon Skin is heavier. I'll go into more detail about that later.

What about canceling death benefits? It turns out that the people who reported this, Soldiers for Truth, asked the military if this was an actual policy but ran the story before they got a response. A week later they still are not sure.

Since Dragon Skin uses multiple small plates, it is possible that a bullet could slip between them, making the armor less protective. I don't know but that would be consistent with the "good in a knife fight" comment.

If there actually was a policy against using non-issue armor I can understand it. The government could face lawsuits if someone is killed wearing Dragon Skin.

There are reports that Dragon Skin is being tested in Afghanistan.

Now, what about the other report - that 80% of deaths could have been prevented? That's what was reported but that mis-represents the actual study.

The Pentagon examined 93 fatal wounds to Marines and concluded that 74 of them were in areas unprotected by current armor. Of 39 fatal torso wounds in which the bullet or shrapnel entered the Marine's body outside of the ceramic armor plate protecting the chest and back, 31 were close to the plate's edge, according to the study.

Notice the numbers here. 93 deaths were studied but only 39 were torso wounds and 31 were close enough that larger armor would have covered the entry wound.

If we took the original numbers at face value we would conclude that or the approximately 2,200 deaths so far, 1,760 dies needlessly. That is how the perpetually outraged presented the story.

A more fair person would only include soldiers killed by enemy action. Around 1/4 of the deaths to date were not related to hostilities. Around 1,600 combat deaths have occurred which would give a figure of 1,280 needless deaths.

But, only 39 of 93 deaths were torso wounds and 31 of those might have been saved. Figure 31/93*1600 and you get 671. Still a lot of flag-draped coffins but a lot less than the 1,760 originally implied and a very tiny percentage of the hundreds of thousands of military personnel who have been posted in Iraq.

But all of this is meaningless. 31 of 39 deaths are too few to draw any real conclusions from.

There are other issues. The moderns soldier carries up to 100 pounds of equipment. Dragon skin or larger ceramic plates add more weight. That reduces mobility, slows soldiers, and tires them more quickly. This is not my opinion. See here.

Until mechanized exoskeletons are available there will be a limit to how much armor a soldier can carry. There will be gaps and soldiers will die.

Possibly the Pentagon has done a study on how many soldiers were attacked and saved by their armor. If so, no one has bothered to leak it, probably because no one will be outraged.