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."
Who ever considered breasts a problem area? Seriously...
edit: captcha spelled "maternal". Hah.
My novel idea is reducing injuries and fatalities through getting involved in fewer conflicts. It is a radical idea, but it just might work.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Sweet! Booty armor!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
If recent threads on slashdot about anything involving women are anything to go by, this will degenerate into a flame war between mysoginists and normal people.
After all, if women aren't up to the job of wearing body armour, they shouldn't join the army. So what if it puts them off. Should we concentrating on getting more women to become barbage(wo)men?
For the impaired: that is sarcasm.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
All my gaming experience has taught me that it should be skin-tight and leaves arms, legs and midriff bare.
It's not a chainmail bikini and hence the armor rating is really shitty when worn by females.
Quite frankly, all but the extremely endowed will have minimal problems in the chest area. They're not exactly wearing pushup bras into combat obviously, and most women wearing a sports bra don't have an appreciably bigger chest than the average male body builder (though obviously the dimensions will be different and there will always be outliers). The areas they are concerned about are those that either cause the body army to slip out of position by not being adjustable to smaller frames (shoulders and waist) or hamper mobility (torso length).
As an example, my wife has two scars between her breasts from burning hot shells from a 50 cal machine gun while she was in Iraq. Because she's a D-cup the body armor she was wouldn't fit tight against the neck area like it does on a man.. she describes it as nearly impossible to reach down and grab the shell, sometimes there wasn't time to do anything about it.
They're a huge part of the difference, yes.
Or maybe they're just being professionals rather than juveniles. (Really, four different slang terms in one post? Grow up.) Or, and I find this likely, given the wide variation in sizes and position of female breasts (and there's no real correlation with other body measurements) they're going for the same "one size fits mostly all" approach.
They're also releasing a consumer line of female body armor, available in 28 different colors and patterns including taupe, seafoam green, mauve, purple camo, plaid and hot pink polka dots.
Having worked with many Marines, my guess is that the chest size was not the main issue - young muscle-y men already tend to have larger chest circumference than the (in shape) women I know. Yes, the shape is different, but breasts are fairly malleable, so as long as the chest area is large enough, your chances are pretty good of being able to fit your breasts in.
Shoulders, on the other hand are a really big deal. Imagine if the armor is resting on the edge of the shoulder/upper arm - not only is it much more difficult to support the weight of the armor this way, but this could potentially restrict arm movement. Similarly with torso/waist area, if the armor doesn't sit properly its weight can't be distributed correctly; I'd imagine this causes discomfort at best, and restricted movement or even injury at worst.
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."
I noticed that too. Especially considering the vast breast size differences between women. TFA focussed very much on how to make it fit nicely around a woman's waist... which I don't think is the key problem spot.
Also reading this story, my first reaction was "don't they have that already?" Long time ago I remember watching a documentary about civilian type body armour, bullet proof vests, typically for use by private security guards or police. The host also asked the manufacturer about vests for women. The answer was simply: yes, we have those as well, they come with cups.
Torso length and shoulder width tend to scale together and there will be various sizes as even men come in different sizes, the fact that women have a problem for shoulder width and torso length is probably mainly because they wear oversized so that their boobs fit in. That is also an issue with general combat uniforms, which tend to be designed for male figures, so women have to take too big sizes.
pics or it didnt happen
Grow up and show some respect, asshole.
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
The amount of awesome in your post is amazing for slash dot. 1) wife 2) d-cup 3) using a 50. cal 4) body armor. 5) reaching between You have reached a Nirvana few slashdotters will ever attain. ps Tell her "thank you for all shes done for the country."
We'll just disband the military entirely and stop all research. After all, if we don't want to get in to a conflict, it'll never happen right? No nation has EVER been attacked or invaded without starting shit.
Oh please. While I agree that the US need to stop trying to play world police and getting involved in shit all over, that doesn't mean that a military still isn't going to be needed. Not many countries can get away with having no military and the ones that can it is only because another nation or nations protects them.
This is quite a sensible thing for the military to spend money on. Some women wish to serve as soldiers, they should have body armour that works for them.
Which is more juvenile:
Not even bringing mammary glands into an article on the topic of how men and women differ in terms of how body armor fits because talking about breasts apparently makes some people uncomfortable
or
Actually talking about how hooters are a pretty significant anatomical difference that would seem to be highly relevant to designing body armor specifically for women.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
The fact that it's better armor than Kevlar + trauma plates is a nice bonus =)
Against most foes, sure. But what if we end up at war with the bowmen of Esgaroth? You'd be signing our soldiers' death warrants!
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Pull your head out of your ass and stop making assumptions. You think you're intelligent but all you spout is BS talking points someone else came up with.
1) The post said she was shot. It didn't say she shot back, so you don't know if she killed anyone.
2) Those so called "freedom fighters" were either A) ex-Iraqi Army soldiers who basically fled in the face of the US military and joined the militias, so the same idiots who worked for Saddam and oppressed other Iraqis, or B) people who joined militias that not only fought the US military but just as often attacked their fellow Iraqis for having the "wrong kind of Islam". You can argue the reasons for the US going into Iraq, but I live in the biggest Marine town in the US (San Diego) and have met numerous marines, and all of them in Iraq really did try to help the Iraqi people. Freedom fighters my ass, they only wanted the freedom to oppress those different from themselves. The only good guys in the whole Iraqi conflict was the average US soldier.
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 it doesn't, it simply means she was in the path of the ejecting brass from a fired .50 cal. Most guns don't throw their spent shell casings strait up and back to hit the operator in the face/chest area. It should be common sense as to why, but apparently not here. All you have to do is mention guns, war, and breasts and you get the trifecta of idiots on slashdot out to make inappropriate comments and stupid assumptions.
Actually, that sounds hilarious.
Even better that you americans are circumcised and would burn your dick even more.
Anyway, the guys name still hints at it being a not very personal space.
Also, she can probably hid it behind her massive tits.
Now stop being whiteknight.
Wow...assume much?
a) not american
b) not circumcised, mostly because I'm
c) not male.
So yes, I know what I'm talking about, more than some teenage boy who never leaves his mama's basement (okay, that's my assumption re: the character of the AC).
Right or wrong, western society's focus on the female appearance often makes scarring to the face or chest much more traumatic than it is for men. For men, it's considered macho to have scars, for women, it's considered disfiguring. I didn't say that was fair, it's just the double standard that is in place.
Oh, and assuming that his tag reflects reality also implies that yours does...so am I talking to a wall here? Maybe I should be using smaller words?
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Its a requirement to see this video before you fully appreciate the modern female's body armor needs.
Actually, they don't factor in as much as you think. I'm speaking from experience as a woman who was a member of the Canadian Forces Reserve for 12 years. Breasts are soft and can be "squished", within reason, and still not be a comfort issue. Of course this varies from woman to woman and cup size (A and B cups not as much an issue, C and D cups more so).
But the smaller waist to shoulder ratio and torso length cause real issues. The old style rucksacks that I had to carry came only in one length, long. They had an external metal frame and was designed to end at a man's waist. The metal sat against the upper curves of my buttocks. After wearing that for a full day, I was rubbed raw and bleeding. We learned to tape padding to the frames to minimize the damage they caused.
There were lots of other issues with gear that couldn't be adjusted to fit the female form, like the webbing that was designed to be snug around the hips and worked for the guys, not so much for the gals. It would rise up to our waist and twist around. We were constantly fighting to keep it in place.
Or maybe they're just being professionals rather than juveniles.
Ah yes. Let's see
and from the video
Could they perhaps more usefully say something like:
I'm sure some on Slashdot will go "snigger snigger; he said 'breast'; snigger sigger" like a beavis and butthead edition, but that's not something that a "professional" should even notice. Being clearer and more direct would make the whole thing need much less discussion.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Getting turned on is NOT disrespectful -- it's about how you treat a lady. Obviously, there is a bit of construction worker competing with the geek factor here on Slashdot.
Now, anyone who isn't getting a boner about hot shells falling down the cleavage of a D-Cup lady as she's pounding out 50 Cal bullets just isn't a hot blooded American male. Sometimes "respect" can be confused with "irredeemably metro".
>> Anyway, no offense to anyone here - these are just jokes!
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Not to mention the fact that a .50 cal is not used to "shoot freedom fighters" as the Geneva conventions specifically restricts the use of such weapons to enemy vehicles and equipment.
This is a common misconception. There's nothing in the Geneva conventions that prohibits the use of .50 BMG and similar cartridges against human targets. The restrictions on weapons used in warfare actually come from the Hague conventions, and they only prohibit the use of expanding or exploding bullets (hence why militaries all use FMJ).
Your friends were either bullshitting you, or they misunderstood the nature of the restriction (you wouldn't want to waste these kinds of bullets on soft targets not in cover when a GPMG in .308 would do just fine)
You're ignoring the fact that there are often several people and objects near to you when you are shooting. Ejected casings hit things and bounce around before hitting the ground. Personally I've had my own brass hit me or go down my shirt a few times. It happens, it's hot, and it burns.
uh no.. mainly it was because in the field, soldiers depend on one another to have roughly equivalent physical ability.. such as the ability to drag an injured 200+lb soldier and his 60-100lb pack and equipment to safety if he was hit.. most women cannot do this no matter how much they train.. there are also inter-gender psychological considerations that simply don't exist when everyone is the same gender. for example, the male-bonding tendency, one of the key psychological mechanisms keeping a unit together under ridiculous stress, is easily shattered when the men switch to instinctive chivalry for present women. these dynamics are a biological high priority and cause distractions that, under extreme stress, get people killed.
physically, women just aren't as strong or as robust, even when healthy and as fit as possible. the more extreme the situations the more likely they slow the unit down while taking up slots that more able men can take. it's like the olympics where they sacrifice better performing male athletes for women, except the stakes are much higher. the PT regimens for women are tame for a reason.. most fit 14yo highschool boys could pass them with no problem, yet women get paid the same pay for the same rank, and men are expected to treat them as equals when they clearly are not.
these are (some of) the facts. hiding behind political correctness doesn't change them, but it does prevent society from accepting them which is quite harmful to both genders.