If Sg go to conflict and u guys find the issued armor not
good,shall SAF allow non-issued armor subject to certain
requirement,ie comuflage ,protective level etc.
Corps Restricts Non-Issued Armor Use,Military.com |
By Christian Lowe |2007 April 19, 2007
The Marine Corps issued a directive Tuesday restricting the use
of store-bought personal protective equipment in the war zone,
including body armor, ballistic glasses, armor plates and
fire-retardant clothing.
Corps officials say Marines may not use such protective equipment
in place of gear issued by service. Marines are free to buy and
wear their own safety equipment - including body armor- officials
explained, but they must also use their issued items and will not
be reimbursed for their purchase.
The Army issued a similar message in March of 2006 after
controversy erupted over claims that a certain type of body armor
vest designed by Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor was
more effective than service-issued Interceptor vests. But for more
than a year, the Corps declined to follow suit.
Read the Marine Corps Directive here.(pl go to the linked
article)
The so-called "Dragon Skin" vest - which was among the armor banned
by the Army - uses interlocking ceramic disks that videos on
Pinnacle's Web site claim can absorb multiple AK-47 rounds and 9mm
shots without penetration.
The current enhanced small arms protective plate can absorb a small
number of high-velocity AK-47 rounds before failure.
"In its current state of development, Dragon Skin's capabilities do
not meet Army requirements," the Army's March 17, 2006, "safety of
use message" states. "In fact, Dragon Skin has not been
certified by the Army for protection against several small-arms
threats being encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan
today."
"Although this message specifically identifies Dragon Skin, it
applies to other commercially available body armor products (such
as commercial police vests) that are not Army approved and issued,"
it added.
At the time, the Marine Corps declined to go along with the Army's
ban, saying they preferred to have Marines wear Corps-issued vests
but would not issue a formal restriction.
But on April 17, Marine officials reversed their stance,
restricting the use of personal protective equipment - including
body armor - to those items issued by the Corps.
"Individual Marines [and] Sailors may not use commercial PPE in
lieu of government tested, approved and issued PPE," the message
states. "Individually-purchased commercial PPE will not be
reimbursed by command [or] unit funds."
The message is unclear whether Marines who continue to wear their
own protective gear will be disciplined, but the Army has said
Soldiers could face disciplinary action if they defy the ban.
"If Soldiers are doing this, they're doing it at their own risk," a
top Army acquisition official said announcing last year's ban. "But
I can tell you Army Soldiers, at this point in time, based upon the
safety of use message that was sent out, are prohibited at this
point in time from wearing it - it's a command requirement to
basically take care of that."
The marketing and manufacture of after-market military equipment
has become a booming business since 9-11, with companies selling a
wide range of glasses, goggles, vests and uniforms that troops
often find more comfortable and customizable than military-issued
gear.
The services have moved in recent months to alleviate concerns over
comfort and fit of body armor and other protective equipment, with
both the Army and Marine Corps replacing their Interceptor vests
with new designs. Soldiers and Marines have also been issued a
variety of modern protective equipment through "rapid equipping"
and "urgent needs" initiatives.
The Corps' announcement gives some leeway to Marines and their
commanders to use non-issued PPE gear, but only "as long as those
additions do not interfere with the functionality of approved PPE."
Moreover, Marine commanders may not use any funds to purchase
unit-specific gear that has not been government-tested and approved
for use by the Corps.
The policy also allows Marines to reduce the amount of protective
equipment they wear based on the threat and a commander's
requirements.
During their deployment to Afghanistan in 2004, for example,
leathernecks with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit were
authorized to wear plate-carriers in lieu of their full body armor
vests given the minimal blast threat where they were operating and
to reduce weight in the rugged, high-altitude terrain.
"Commanders who determine that a lower level of PPE is appropriate
must receive approval from their respective [Marine] or [joint]
commander prior to execution of any change," the Marine message
said.
Related Links:
New Army Armor
Dragon Skin: Proven Tough?
Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.
--http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,132837,00.html?ESRC=dod-b.nl
2. this logo is sure not allowed at the back of ur armor:
