An absolute home run, Ace. One of my biggest peeves with Lefty/Democrat politics has been the utter abdication of their role as rational opponents. They are simply not people that can be taken seriously anymore and that harms our democracy more than (nearly) any specific policy they advance...

Point Blank sold defective armor to various police agencies thru the late 90's to about 2003-when they finally recalled it. I remember walking around the South Bronx with it on-never knowing it was a kevlar t-shirt. When this hit the news Schumer didn't even have a press conference, I feel kind of shafted.

That changes things, if true. I never heard that.

What is the rate of defects in armor? Is Point Blank's rate especially high?

It can't be the case that every unit of armor sold by other manufacturers is at zero-defect quality control.

You realize, I hope, that there's no connection whatsoever between the Pentagon report that the design of military body armor is faulty and the Army/Marines recall of body armor that doesn't meet the specifications of that (faulty) design?

I have to say I'm a bit dubious about the general idea of converting troops into medieval knights. After all, look at how the Rebellion soldiers kicked the butts of the Imperial Stormtroopers in their head-to-toe white marshmallow suits whenever they met them in close combats. I've always felt that the real sin was the failure to provide the proper armor for the humvees in a timely manner, and maybe get them up on twenty-foot legs above the explosions.

But, yeah, I suppose any response to failures in the Pentagon that cause troops to die is "over-reacting."

It's been a very long time but I once worked as a tester for a company manufacturing military navigation equipment. There was a militray guy in a nearby office who reviewed all tests and occasionaly ran his own.

The military had a very formal sampling system. A single failure in any of the tests would increase the sample size. It took very few failures to have an entire production batch rejected. It was not uncommon to have previously passed batches re-sampled. When thirty units were tested at -30C, one of the dials failed to take a bearing in the required time due to the motor turning more slowly. This failure required that we test 100 for the same thing. Three of those failed. The entire production batch was recalled. All shipments were stopped and several hundred units already shipped were returned.

I am sure someone who works in that trade now can provide better information but it's my guess that it would take only a half dozen or so vests to fail the test to result in thousands being recalled.

But, yeah, I suppose any response to failures in the Pentagon that cause troops to die is "over-reacting."

Thanks for illustrating Ace's point, Bob. With you guys, its all about 'getting Bush'. Come 2008 you guys are going to have an unfillable void in your lives. What I'm counting on is you'll turn that anger on each other.

BrewFan: Bush works in the Pentagon now?

The problem is, ace, liberals really do believe all the manufactured non-scandals ARE serious, are real, and deserving of public attention and consideration. Maybe the Democrats in Washington, especially in the Senate are completely cynical and aware most everything they express outrage over is much ado about nothing. But they also know the public isn't curious enough to check them on things on their own. If it weren't for guys like Rush Limbaugh and now bloggers, the Democrats and their friends in the news would have free reign to impose and create a distored reality.

We'll know that the the Left has hit rock bottom when they start demanding the autopsy reports of dead Marines who may have been wearing the defective vests. Then, they will run ads featuring the pictures of said dead Marines (preferably lying prostrate on some dusty street in Baghdad, but simply showing them with their families would work too) with an audio voiceover saying that Bush's friends in the Military-Industrial Complex failed to give these poor saps the armor they needed to survive in the hellhole of Iraq.

Mmmmkay, lemme make this really easy:

more armor=less mobility

If we wanted to, we could encase our soldiers in solid cylinders of titanium… but they wouldn't be able to do much other than roll around and run into things.

Making effective body armor is not the same as making impenetrable body armor.

Have you ever heard of a poor defense contractor?

Every fucking day, Ace.

They. Never. Stop. Whining. To. Us.

Geez, Lockheed Martin/Boeing/Northrop Grumman/Raytheon, you might not need more money for that contract IF YOU DIDN'T FUCKING OVERRUN!!!

Sorry, had to get that out my system.

Better now, thanks.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

BrewFan: Bush works in the Pentagon now?

Your reputation precedes you, Bob. No need to be disingenuous around here.

Have you ever heard of a poor defense contractor?

It takes a lot of work to make money in the defense industry. With my tiny company, I'm allowed a 6 - 6.5% profit margin, which normally just covers overruns. [Since I do R&D, cost overruns are not infrequent.] It can be a comfortable living, if the work keeps coming in, but it's nothing like the money-making opportunities in other industries.

A new play Embittered by Tim Robbins.

Synopsis: Greedy New York Jewish Republican working in defense industry cuts corners on production of supplies to US soldiers in Iraq to squeeze out enough profit to pay for Jewish rock group Kiss to reune for his JAP daughter's lavish bat mitzvah.

Review: Yes. there are greedy Jews and, indeed, there are greedy Republicans in New York, but hard to believe there any Jewish Republicans in the Big Apple, and Robbins otherwise admirable dramaturgical efforts fall down upon this central implausibility.

Starring Tim Robbins and guerilla theater veterans Johnny X and Sarah Athena Roz. At The Public, March 5 - ?.

"But, yeah, I suppose any response to failures in the Pentagon that cause troops to die is "over-reacting.""

Bob, you have confused me. I read Ace's post pretty carefully and according to the quotes provided, "...none of the hundreds of thousands of outer tactical vests that Point Blank has manufactured have failed in the field..." and "...while the vests may have failed to meet specifications in tests, they did not fall short of the requirements for the threat they were designed to repel."

I still don't see where these recalled vests have caused "troops to die". In fact, it looks like the DoDs quality control procedures are, in fact, working. It is entirely possible that the flaws in these vests are totally unrelated to their ability to stop bullets and shrapnel. Out of spec could also mean that the dye used did not hold up well under desert usage and the vests faded badly. It could mean that the thread used to stitch them together didn't last as long as it should have. It could even mean that the labels became illegible over time. All of those things could prompt a recall - not just by DoD, but in industry as ell. Of course, it could also mean that there was something wrong with the Kevlar, but the fact that, despite Bob's sarcastic rejoinder, no deaths - or even injuries - appear to be attributed to a failure of these recalled vests.

Get a life, Munck. Or at least, learn to read and understand before you open your yap.

Dave (Garfield Ridge),

Those overruns are largely self-inflicted. It's damn near impossible to have steady (unchanging) requirements at the start of any major project. I have personal experience on the rate of change of several of those contracts and it's incredibly hard to manage.

The easiest way is to go back to the prime contractor with hat in hand and say, I've got some more changes (because of GAO, Congress, enemy TTP, etc.). The prime gives you a toothy grin, and says of course they can accomodate the change, but we have to negotiate the cost.

If I could fix anything about the system it would be to streamline how requirements are formed in the beginning - but that takes time to do it right.

Whenever everyone is screaming to make more armor now (like in this war), you got to do what you got to do to get it done. Even though this is largely a mature technology, there just aren't that many people who know kevlar and ceramic physics in the government to help write good specs and administer contracts.

Rusty

Dave, Ace mentioned two different things, the recalled armor and the Pentagon report about how some number of troops (I think it was 800) died who otherwise would have survived with differently-designed armor. That's what my original comment was about. Reading isn't that difficult a skill.

(I think it was 800) died who otherwise would have survived with differently-designed armor.

Back this assertion up with a cite or STFU you ghoulish asshole. Has it occured to you that family and friends of some of our fallen might have to read this bullshit you turds keep spewing?

BrewFan: The New York Times. Couldn't find a link to the original Pentagon report; my access to TopSecret.mil may have lapsed.

I was wrong about the 800 figure; may have been remembering 80%, but that would be less.

I was wrong about the 800 figure

Yep. You were wrong (emphasis mine):

A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

The ceramic plates in vests currently worn by the majority of military personnel in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back. In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.

Thirty-one of the deadly wounds struck the chest or back so close to the plates that simply enlarging the existing shields "would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," according to the study, which was obtained by The New York Times.

BTW, the article is linked here . As your friend Thomas would say "Read the Fucking Article".

Due to some loose HTML sh*t on my part, the two paragraphs following the italicized paragraph should also be italicized, indicating its an extract from the NYT article.

BrewFan, ok, now you've confused me. You asked for a cite, I gave you one, and you then pointed out that Ace had had the same cite previously. Of course I knew that, or I wouldn't have written my first comment in this thread on the difference between his two posts. Then you told me to read the article I cited. Obviously, I had.

Could you explain or rephrase the message you were trying to convey in your 03:57 PM posting. I'm at a loss.

Who is Thomas?

Then you told me to read the article I cited. Obviously, I had.

The 800 number you pulled out of your ass sure had me fooled. I suppose its possible you have a short term memory problem but somehow I doubt that.

Could you explain or rephrase the message you were trying to convey in your 03:57 PM posting. I'm at a loss.

Sure. You're a disingenuous troll who doesn't mind distorting the truth as long as it supports your world view. When you're called on your attempt at disinformation you say "I was wrong about the 800 figure; may have been remembering 80%, but that would be less." instead of "well, it was 74, and of course there is no way to know for sure if any extra armor would have saved them or not".

Who is Thomas?

A slightly stupider version of you.

Thomas is gonna get mad.

I am shocked, shocked, that Tubino made an assertion that didn't pan out.

Texas Dave: What do you mean? Tom's always mad. He just switches randomly from "pretending to be cool about it but totally seething" mad to "full on drooling retard" mad.

I have a theory that you can tell which mode he is in by the number of "..." in his posts.

Anybody calls me stupider than Bob Munck there's gonna be gunplay

I may have been a little harsh with Tommy.

Luckily for us Tom is probably too stupid to know why he should be mad at that.

BrewFan: When you're called on your attempt at disinformation you say "I was wrong about the 800 figure; may have been remembering 80%, but that would be less." instead of "well, it was 74, and of course there is no way to know for sure if any extra armor would have saved them or not".

Obviously a number of those deaths happened in ways that armor couldn't have prevented, such as the 12 Americans killed today in a helicopter crash. Were there as many as 1000 deaths, 45% of the total, to which the Pentagon's statistics would apply, with the result that 800 of them could have been prevented? I have no idea, but it seems like a reasonable estimate given the nature of the conflict.

It is possible to argue without attempting to insult the person you're arguing with, and even to win such arguments.

THE SCENE: Math class

Thomas: Look, I don't care about your fancy book learning and all that Republican crap, 3+4 does NOT EQUAL SEVEN.

Teacher: Thomas, we've been over this twenty seven times. If you have three apples here, and four apples there, you will have seven apples when you put them together.

Thomas: I understand that you're all dishonest and stupid, but one of these days you will have the honesty to admit I'm right.

The Entire Class: COUNT THE FUCKING APPLES, THOMAS.

Thomas: Duh, okay. There's three there, and four there, that comes to 34.

The recess bell rings

Thomas: Well, I have to go now, after holding my own (and succeeding) against Mrs. Finchley's entire second grade class, it's time for hopscotch.

Teacher: It looks like we'll be holding you back a year. Again.

Thomas: Oh shit, it's time to change my name. Again.

That could mean, though it doesn't, that 80% of the 2210 American deaths in Iraq, 1768, could have been prevented by better armor.

There he goes again!

"Dave, Ace mentioned two different things, the recalled armor and the Pentagon report about how some number of troops (I think it was 800) died who otherwise would have survived with differently-designed armor. That's what my original comment was about. Reading isn't that difficult a skill."

Late response because I have been away for a few hours, but:

What confused me was that the report Ace mentioned was mentioned in a completely different post and not linked. You get points for remembering that Ace had mentioned it somewhere else. You lose points for trying to combine the two without linkingAND for getting the facts wrong.

So maybe you can read, but your memory has problems and your communication skills just plain suck.

Thanks to BrewFan for linking to the actual post BM dragged in.

That could mean, though it doesn't, that 80% of the 2210 American deaths in Iraq, 1768, could have been prevented by better armor.

There he goes again!
Posted by Ronald Reagan at January 8, 2006 05:48 PM

That could mean, though it doesn't, that 80% of the 2210 American deaths in Iraq, 1768, could have been prevented by better armor.

You don't have to guess, the article tells you the answer:

The findings and other research by military pathologists suggests that an analysis of all combat deaths in Iraq, including those of Army personnel, would show that 300 or more lives might have been saved with improved body armor.

That last comment was me.

That could mean, though it doesn't, that 80% of the 2210 American deaths in Iraq, 1768, could have been prevented by better armor.

I swoon!

geoff,

Maybe its just me but that's extrapolating a questionable conclusion and it creates a false impression.

If the 'new' armor is unwearable, introducing it may have increased casualties because it wouldn't be worn to start with.

If the 'new' armor is unwearable, introducing it may have increased casualties because it wouldn't be worn to start with.

Or, even if worn, it could induce immobility, heat exhaustion, fatigue, slow reaction times and the like that would have cost more lives.

We just don't know. The development of combat gear is frequently a matter of trial and error, because you can't really reproduce combat conditions in a lab. And even if you could, you won't anticipate battlefield innovations in the next conflict, like IEDs. Or, as I mentioned in a previous thread, Saladin's use of light cavalry to defeat heavily armored and immobile Crusaders.

That's why this whole debate seems kind of silly to me.

If the 'new' armor is unwearable, introducing it may have increased casualties because it wouldn't be worn to start with.

Or, even if worn, it could induce immobility, heat exhaustion, fatigue, slow reaction times and the like that would have cost more lives.

geoff, good catch. I missed that paragraph.

BrewFan, you're no Ronald Reagan. Don't try to pretend.

And, equally silly, is the implied assumption of many commenters that the fatality rate is the only criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of body armor. As discussed in an earlier thread, you don't put soldiers into combat just to keep them alive. They are there to kill the enemy. Combat effectiveness is a valid consideration, and there will inevitably be trade-offs.

After all, the best way to ensure the safety of American soldiers is to not show up for the fight. Just fucking surrender. Let somebody else take on the bad guys. Works for France.

Reading isn't that difficult a skill.
Posted by: Bob Munck on January 8, 2006 03:07 PM

I was wrong about the 800 figure Posted by: Bob Munck

geoff, good catch. I missed that paragraph. Posted by: Bob Munck

lol!

Hey, is there going to be a "first team" of commenters coming on this blog sometime later? This is like sparing with the JVs. And with a drunken fan running onto the field.

If the 'new' armor is unwearable, introducing it may have increased casualties because it wouldn't be worn to start with.

You're right, there was no attempt to gauge the opportunity cost of implementing the more extensive armor, so the 300 lives saved would be a maximum. But I thought it was important to point out the "300" number, since much larger numbers were starting to be bandied about.

Hey, is there going to be a "first team" of commenters coming on this blog sometime later?

If you're offering to leave, we gratefully accept your generous proposal.

We'll even hold in the laughter until you're out the door to preserve your dignity.

And with a drunken fan running onto the field.

That would be Michael. Just ignore him.

So, Bob, how does it feel to get pwned by the JV?

That would be Michael. Just ignore him.

God help me, Brewfan.

I just can't quit you.

This entire arguement about better armor saving lives is pointless considering there is no better armor that would not compromise combat effectiveness.
If you're not combat effective on the battle field, you're a liability and in the way.

And by the way, no service member even leaves Kuwait without an IBA with both plates.

Sortelli: "I am shocked, shocked, that Tubino made an assertion that didn't pan out."

Yes, I am the one who mentioned the defective armor story, but no, I didn't make any assertions disproven here.

If you read what I wrote, I said it was unlikely that defective armor played any role in the deaths in Iraq, but from what I read it was possible. (Possible because only a portion of the jackets were removed from use, and because according to some of the articles, the nature of the defect is the speed of degradation over time.)

But for all I know, I'm defending myself against some other assertion made with my handle. Whatever.

geoff tells us it is hard to make money in the defense industry, but for SOME there are "cost-plus" contracts, which make it impossible to LOSE money. All your costs are covered, plus a percentage (maybe as high as 10%).

Nice work if you can get it. Geoff, maybe you needed to befriend Duke Cunningham -- before he started wearing a wire, of course.

but for SOME there are "cost-plus" contracts, which make it impossible to LOSE money. All your costs are covered, plus a percentage (maybe as high as 10%).

Well that's the way it's supposed to work, but really happens for us small guys is that the CPFF contract is treated like a firm-fixed price contract (i.e., the customer demands the deliverables and won't allow a cost increase), and we eat the overruns anyway. The allowable fee on CPFF contracts is lower than on FFP contracts (because the risk is supposed to be lower). Big companies can get higher fees because they have significant capitalization, for which the FAR gives them additional percentage points.

Oh, and what bothered me about the Bat Mitzvah was the guy's MUSICAL taste, esp. for a party for his 12-year-old.

Do you really think she wanted more than anything to meet Aerosmith?

Seriously, though, as I mentioned before there's a backstory on the guy's nearly-instant rise to riches. It really won't surprise me if it turns out to be tied in with another scandal of crony contracting. But time will tell.

On the credibility issue... I've offered repeatedly to make wagers on many many topics. What I've found is that plenty like to make baseless smears and assertions (hi Sortelli!), but no one has responded to my challenges to put up or shut up.

Still offering on further indictments on treasongate.

Still offering on further indictments on treasongate.

Offering anything for convinctions?

The Army recalled 8,083 vests out of a total of 873,000 it has used in the field

If this is what you're talking about when you said 10% were recalled, it's 1% not 10%...