The news...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060107/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_body_armor;_ylt=AiuQS1Cz_wXSU4sCilCrMX9vzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
I found this article on yahoo. Everywhere else the front pages were reporting that thousands of troops could have been saved from death had they been equipped with armor. However, as the above link shows, many of the men view improved mobility as more important.
I am not willing to bet the farm here, but I think most journalists aren't aware...historically, the trend has always been to less protection and more mobility; it wasn't that firearms destroyed armor (though it helped), to use a medieval example; but that the armor kept getting larger, bulkier and heavier; warriors felt that they had a better chance if they could avoid the blows than to stand there in heavy metal and get clanked upon.
I know, I know, dumbshit reporters...who knew? Next you'll tell me that once in a while they commit plaigarism...
M
posted by mattie9 @ 3:02 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Don't ya know.... or rather, I guess those interviewed, did not know... it's better to get the crap kicked out of you a little.. then to be blow the F&^k up. *sigh* Guess not.
John:
I don't think you are wrong; quite frankly, methinks you are on to something. Of course, a well-balanced article would have had BOTH points in the beginning, instead of running to smear the administration.
I have read some studies- basically, they put some medieval armor on grad students, then attacked them with medieval weapons (dulled). Not surprisingly, the heavier armor (plate compared to chain, for example) did protect the user much more. However, to an extent, the users preferred the lighter armor, since it was simply too exhausting to wear the plate for a long time without being too physically drained to lift their weapons. I suspect something similar is in play here...
Post a Comment
<< Home