Slashdot Mirror
US Army Developing Armor Tailored For Females
cylonlover writes, quoting Gizmag: "Body armor is a blessing and a curse for soldiers. Modern tactical armor has saved thousands of lives from bullets and bombs, but it can also be a major problem if it doesn't fit properly. That's what the women who make up 14 percent of the U.S. Army face on a regular basis. Now, according to the Army News Service, the Army is preparing to test a new armor that is tailored to the female form to replace the standard men's armor that the women now use. Working on data collected in studies overseas and at stateside army bases, the Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier has identified several problem areas and has developed a new armor that will be tested in 2013."
Interesting that they can write a whole article on redesigning body armor for women and there's not a single reference to tatas.
Are the main differences really torso length, should width, and waist size? Do chesticles not really factor into the redesign? Or are the authors just being polite and not highlighting jugs as a factor?
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
One of the things that is supposed to have demoralised numbers of German soldiers later in WW2 is that so many of the Russian tank crews were women. But why should that be surprising? In the Napoleonic wars and after, the powder room on many British warships (where they kept the explosives, not the toilet) would have been operated by women who, according to the official lists, didn't even exist. It seems amazing that so many of them managed to live on cramped warships in addition to the official crew establishment, but memos from Nelson to John Jervis make it clear that this was a case where sensible officers turned a blind eye.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Body armor designed specifically for gay soldiers.
Extensive historical research (no, I'm not kidding) points out that the army with the most stylish and fashionable uniform almost always loses the war. Just saying. Probably don't want to go there.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
1) The post said she was shot. It didn't say she shot back, so you don't know if she killed anyone.
No it didn't. It said she was injured from the shells. As in, the stuff that remains when the bullet goes through. Which means she was doing the shooting.
No but you must feel pretty stupid because the shells eject from the side downwards, not back upwards at the person firing the gun, that would be a stupid design. More than likely she was a passenger in the vehicle and one fell down on her. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb3eoKhRS9A
Well, compared to most other things military spends money on, developing better infantry armor is very cheap (look up the cost of a single Tomahawk missile for comparison).