Armor All

He fell thunderously, and his armor clattered upon him. -- The Iliad, Lattimore translation.

Pfc. Steven Tschiderer fell thunderously when a high power round from a Dragonoff sniper rifle hit him in the chest.

But he got right back up (see video) thanks to his body armor.

He immediately took cover on the other side of a Humvee, spotted the silver van from which the sniper was firing about 230 feet away, and directed the other soldiers in his patrol to engage it.

A few minutes later, after a pursuit through the streets of western Baghdad, Pfc. Tschiderer, followed a blood trail to the man who had tried to kill him, lying wounded in a yard. Tschiderer, a medic with Troop E, 101st Cavalry Division, handcuffed the sniper and gave him preliminary treatment for his wounds.

This incident last June, recorded on tape by the terrorists who were trying to kill Tschiderer, has been played again and again on the Internet as a vivid example of how well U.S. troops' body armor works. Indeed, body armor works so well that it may be one of the reasons for the extraordinarily low casualty rates in the Iraq War.

But the grim fact is, if that sniper had squeezed off his round at a moment when Pfc. Tschiderer was standing sideways to him, or had raised his barrel slightly and scored a head shot, the outcome of this incident would have been very different.

The fact that U.S. body armor is not fully protective from every conceivable angle -- like some force field around a soldier -- is not news to anyone who has served in combat. And snide, sinister-sounding articles about "secret studies" seem almost willfully ignorant of the fact that the U.S. military has long agonized over what additional improvements to the body armor could be made without compromising the mobility and fighting ability of the troops.

"Our body armor is not perfect," notes Baghdad Guy, the blog name of an infantryman currently serving in Iraq. "But overall it does a remarkable job of protecting soldiers, marines and airmen and everyone else who wears it."

The real armor problem, as this soldier and many others have been pointing out, is weight and restriction of movement. The fast-moving firefights and ambushes in Iraq, the building-to-building combat, puts a premium on rapid movement and a soldier's ability to employ his weapons at every possible angle. Long patrols in intense heat when in "happy gear" exacts huge physical penalties.

"When I step out the gate," says Baghdad Guy, "I am wearing on my person body armor, a Kevlar helmet, my M4 rifle with a few hundred rounds of ammunition, my M9 sidearm with another hundred rounds of ammunition, 2-3 quarts of water, a portable radio, night vision equipment, and numerous other odds and ends."

He figures that "full combat load" adds more than 40 pounds to his weight "give or take a grenade." But he's probably on the low side. Estimates at James Dunnigan's excellent Strategypage.com show that troops, operating in temperatures that frequently reach over 100 degrees, carry as much as 100 pounds of extra weight while engaging in the rigors of combat in Iraq.

After about 10 pounds of clothing (goggles, kneepads etc.) and 24 pounds of armor (current vest with ceramic plates and Kevlar helmet) other items add up fast -- at least 20 pounds of ammo, 12 to 15 pounds for grenades, rifle, bayonet, flashlight.

But this may all be just starters. If the soldier is part of a fire team, he and three others will be carrying 10 to 20 pounds of machine gun ammunition. Just standing around with all this weight is tiring, "but running around under fire, carrying 50-60 pounds is pretty common, and exhausting."

As Baghdad Guy points out, "too much weight means a soldier moves slower, tires more easily, maneuvers less stealthily and spends more time feeling sorry for himself instead of focusing on the mission."

Make no mistake, he's all for optimum protection. "When someone designs an affordable lightweight polymer that allows for freedom of movement but can stop a 7.62mm round (kind of like the batsuit in Batman Begins), sign me up."

But, as Capt. Jamey Turner, of Baton Route, La., currently with the 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment, in Iraq, told an Associated Press reporter "you've got to sacrifice some protection for mobility. If you cover your whole body with ceramic plates, you're just not going to be able to move."

From all my research in military history and from the hundreds of interviews I have done over the years with soldiers and Marines from World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, there is a picture that has frequently passed through my mind -- roads and battlefields littered with discarded equipment. Soldiers quickly -- and sometimes unwisely -- divest themselves of gear when they are in a fight. Combat is exhausting. Weight matters. And the fight usually goes to the more nimble. U.S. Special Forces units frequently fight with little or no body armor.

Another infantryman in Iraq, a certain Pfc. Keith Hayes, chimed in recently on the armor issue at the superb Blackfive.net, one of the best military blogs on the web. "Don't try to weight me down with so much "protective" gear you get me killed because I can't raise my weapon from the bulk, or die of heat stroke."

Every soldier wants to be protected, but in the end they are paid to fight. As Baghdad Guy puts it, "At the end of the day, body armor protects the force, but capturing or killing insurgents before they attack us is what really saves lives. The best defense is a good offense."