In the Viet Nam war, they had flak jackets. They were hot, heavy, and of marginal utility. They'd stop fragments, but only slow down anything larger than about a 22 round.

Now we've got body armor that's hot, heavy, and quite good - which was only dreamed of in the '70s. That's the way it is with miltiary gear - you use what's available until something better comes along, but that doesn't mean what you're using is bad.

Look at it another way. On a scale of 1 to 100, the iron breastplates in the Civil War would be about at a 5. No real effort was made to armor soldiers in WW1 and 2, aside from improved helmets - call them from 10 to 20, with 10 being the ones used in WW1, and 20 being the ones in WW2. Aircrews in WW2 had flak jackets and body armor - expensive and heavy, rate that at about a 35 to 50 when all the parts (including the skirt)were used. But it was very impractical for infantry.

Korea? No real body armor but helmets.

Viet Nam - you had flak jackets, but they proved singularly miserable in the high temperatures and humidity of Viet Nam.

Gulf War 1, you started seeing Kevlar vests - which were considerably better than the layered nylon of the Viet Nam era jackets. Rate that at a 60 to 75. After GW1, there was considerable developement of body armor, with ballistic plates designed to give the soldier the best possible chance of survival. Rate it at an 85.

As far as ratings go (at least for this exercise) a 100 would be impervious to a .50 cal round at close range, and provide excellent protection while impeding mobility as little as possible. When we get personal force fields, they'll class as 100.

At this point, the US military's put in a lot of effort and expense to provide the current armor systems. They already exist, the supply line has plenty, and they save lives every day.

Now, if someone comes along with something that rates an 86 or 87, what should be done? Dump what we've got in favor of the new? Immediately pull all stocks and wait until the new stuff's available? Or issue what we have in the supply chain, even if it's not QUITE as good as the new stuff? It may not be the BEST available, but it's a hell of a lot better than what's been available until the last decade or so!

Perspective in regards to military history is a good thing. We've come a long way - and just because something isn't perceived as 'perfect' doesn't mean it can't do a hell of a good job.

Lawson, even though your post was informative, I think it missed the point. The liberal MSM lied again to make this adminstration look bad. Time for the bloggers rallying cry and email the losers. ww

It's not surprising, WW, that they're doing so.

Instead of thinking in a 'progressive' manner, in that we can get an incremental increase in the level of protection with different armor, they try to present it in a binary approach - if the 'best' isn't being used, what IS being used is worthless and it's the government's evil intent to kill soldiers that's behind our use of substandard armor. Never mind the fact that what IS there is a hell of a lot better than any that's been available before - and constantly being improved. It's the typical leftist binary thinking - if it isn't PERFECT, it's WORTHLESS.

They DO tend to shade the truth, and they're ignoring vital background information to make crappy political points. Of course, anyone knowledgeable of the history of such would see the approach is bullshit, which is why I was putting out the history for those interested in it.