So, instead, I'll leave it here as one of the more curious aspects of protective, passive, defensive equipment against guns.
While they are not perfected yet, clearly, this is an interesting development that addresses passive self defense rather than offensive self-defense.
Enjoy.
From MSNBC.com
 |
| British troops model their protective — but not very comfortable — ballistic underwear. |
Marines have ballistic boxers — now they need to be comfy, too
Underwear protect troops, but better breathability, flexibility and comfort sought
By Jeremy Hsu
Kevlar underwear can protect U.S. Marines against blast fragments flying like bullets through the air, but it lacks the comfort of simple cotton undies or silky unmentionables. Now the U.S. military has begun searching for better alternatives that prevent chafing as well as battle wounds. The U.S. Marine Corps sees comfortable undergarments as being equally important to ballistic protection, according to a new request for information aimed at U.S. manufacturers. That means any new underwear fabric must not only shield private parts against burns and tiny fragments traveling at 650 feet per second — the speed of some bullets — but also feel soft against the skin and have the breathability to dry out quickly.
"In particular, we are looking for better breathability, flexibility and comfort while ensuring our Marines maintain the level of protection stated in our requirement," said Barbara Hamby, a public affairs representative for the Marine Corps Systems Command.
Wounds in such sensitive areas can lead to rapid blood loss or infections among U.S. Marine and Army forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a previous Army contract for ballistic underwear. It added, "Without ballistic undergarments, I MEF (Marine Expeditionary Force) and 10th Mountain forces will continue to suffer significant injuries, loss of life, resulting in an adverse effect on combat operations."
U.S. Marines have previously used 75,000 protective undergarments manufactured by a British company for British soldiers. The Marine Corps Systems Command also requested 144,000 undergarments made by U.S. supplier Armorworks in late June 2011, so that U.S. Marines began receiving them in December.
"The protective material in these protective undergarments is a Simplex Weave Kevlar fabric," Hamby told InnovationNewsDaily. "It provides excellent protection from sand and gravel debris from improvised explosive devices."
Silk fabric or synthetic fiber such as Twaron may prove more comfortable than the Simplex Weave Kevlar, Hamby said. The Marine Corps has identified several U.S. fabric manufacturers who might create ballistic underwear using such materials.
Any manufacturer that does take up the challenge must also meet strict guidelines for hygiene and laundry — the underwear should be able to dry out "in less than 4 hours" and resist microbes with "95 percent bacteria reduction after 25 home laundering cycles."
You can follow InnovationNewsDaily Senior Writer Jeremy Hsu
Protectie skivvies would come in handy in a situation like this. A simulated improvised explosive device detonates during a realistic training scenario at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif.
Yeah, yeah, passive is your thing. Except when you're threatened.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, 650 feet per second is the standard? Something's not right there. That's even on the low end for blackpowder cap and ball loads. A .38 Special round goes more than 800 feet per second out of a short barrel, as does a .45 ACP, and those are the slowest of modern rounds.
I have an idea. Why don't they get to hell out of countries where they don't belong and they wouldn't be getting shot at and they could go back to boxers or briefs.
ReplyDeleteIs it any wonder that Ron Paul gets more contributions to his campaign from the active military than all the other candidates combined.
I second that motion. I hold nothing but the highest regard for our military service personnel. What I really despise is our military policy.
ReplyDeleteI have a much simply and less expensive answer. Just tell the whole world in no uncertain terms:
If you attack us, we will eliminate you. We don't care how small or large your organization is. We don't care where you are. We will not respect borders or air space. We will not ask permission to eliminate you. We will not give advanced warning to anyone. We will do our absolute best to minimize civilian casualties. We will send in cruise missiles, rockets, bombs, air strikes, and/or ground raids strictly at our own choosing. If you are a foreign nation and don't want us to eliminate someone within your borders, then eliminate them yourself and save us the trouble.
What is so hard about that?
Capn Crunch, you know I've been thinking about that "highest regard for the military personnel" thing. We hear that from politicians all the time, and from right-wing conservatives. Liberals are afraid to disagree, for the most part. But I'm not.
ReplyDeleteEven in my day, which was 1970, the guys joining were an assortment of misfits and losers. Sure there was the occasional squared away young man who wanted to do the right thing for the country, but he was extremely rare.
Today it's even worse. Poor job prospects make the military an attractive option for the poor and the uneducated. For many it's the only option.
Then you have to consider the immoral wars we've been engaged in. There's nothing noble about participating in them.
So, although I agree it's the military policy we should blame primarily, I'd drop that "supporting the troops" crap too.
mikeb302000 said: "Even in my day, which was 1970, the guys joining were an assortment of misfits and losers."
ReplyDeleteIn the 80's and 90's when I served, we had the occasional misfit and loser. For the most part, the guys I served with were squared away. I do recall one misfit though, he must have been Article 15'd a dozen times before he won a bed at Ft. Leavenworth.
Greg Camp: "By the way, 650 feet per second is the standard? Something's not right there."
It's more for flak protection than bullet protection. Like those old hundred pound flak jackets.
During the days of the draft, we for the most part did not draft those in college,we first went after those who were unable, either financially or intellectually to go.
ReplyDeleteSince our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have lowered our standards for taking criminals; we've waived the felony convictions of a LOT of those entering the military, because under Bush they could quota. This at the same time that perfectly honest and honorable men and women were kicked out of the military, despite being well educated, and in particular, qualified for highly important security jobs like translators.
The criteria for education has been lowered, repeatedly, while the age has been raised to 42 and physical requirements have also been made as minimal as possible --- and even those are still difficult thresholds for getting men and women into our volunteer army, even with very very large signing incentives.
My co-blogger, Pen, on Penigma served for 12 years in the army. It has changed a great deal, much of it very much NOT for the better in terms of the quality of our armed forces personnel.
We are NOT doing what we need to do to have the armed forces we want and need to be secure. I'd argue that we need to put the money we spend not only into things- clothing, weapons, tech-y stuff, but much much more than we have been into PEOPLE.
In that regard, First Lady Michele Obama has been cooperating WITH our armed forces on the topic of obesity. It has been one of the biggest disqualifiers for rejection. But we see no support for what is both a national security issue and a legitimate public health issue from the right. They only like to give empty, glittering generality lip service to our military.
An example is the military position on, of all things, the importance of recess in our schools, and early child education:
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2011/01/all-work-and-no-play-make-jack-dull-boy.html
And those on the right, like most of the presidential candidates for the GOP ticket, who want to end the Department of Education consistently represent poor quality education, not better education. They are shamelessly pandering to those who want to gut science in school for religious reasons, so we no longer teach subjects like evolution. They would follow the practice that was disastrous historically for Islamic countries which makes science and every other subject subordinate to religion and religious orthodoxy.
They favor the simplistic, and usually stupid and ill informed 'common sense' crap, which is consistently code for being incredibly ill informed and ideological.
What a bunch of bigotry against those who serve in the military. When I find out that one of my students served, I'm glad. It nearly every time means that the person will work hard, won't cheat, and will have a good sense of how to live in the real world.
ReplyDeleteNo bigotry.
ReplyDeleteFact.
"
Military grant waivers can be given for those with criminal records, as well as those with low aptitude scores, and medical problems that would normally make them ineligible for service. These are considered "moral" waivers, and can include traffic and drug offenses, misdemeanors and felonies.
In recent years, more recruits with criminal records, and that includes felony convictions, have been allowed to join the Marine Corps and the Army because the military is in dire need of volunteers due to the war. The Army increased its age limit from 35 to 42 in an attempt to recruit more volunteers.
http://felonyrestrictions.com/Joining-the-army.php
As to the comment about limited intellectual accomplishments:
ReplyDeleteAccording to the federal government recruiting has become more difficult over the years; as a result, US Strategists at the Pentagon have made numerous attempts to attract brighter and younger recruits to no avail. For the past four years they have allocated an enormous amount of money as sign on bonuses, they have lowered the passing grade for enlistees; yet there are still major challenges that the US Army recruiting faces, such as: lack of interest by high school graduates, failure to attract students with good grades, and according to Morgan in his article "Army recruiting and the military recruiting gap," competition with Colleges/universities and other industries. While the measures imposed by the military has alleviated some of the shortfalls, as the future looms closer and we barrel into another era, recruiting numbers are expected to continue to decrease. The legal requirements to serve within the military have undergone numerous changes to date, and is currently open to people between the ages of 17-42, with a score of above the 30 percentile. Military recruiters usually focus on recruits who are of "high quality" that is, high school graduates who score well on the entrance examination, however, the shortfalls now besieging the military have forced them to enlist recruits of lower caliber; all this in order to successfully combat the shortfall in recruiting quotas. Military leaders must now strategically prepare for the future if they are to meet their quotas for the next five to ten years, how? They must analyze prevalent trends that will manifest themselves in the future in order to successfully meet the quotas required for the proper execution of military plans.
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Future-of-Military-Recruiting&id=1370617
And as to my comment about poor physical specimens being a problem:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.army.mil/article/44173/Retired_military_leaders_worry_recruit_population_is___039_Too_Fat_to_Fight__039_/
So by all means Greg, deny fact, deny reality, you go with your ideology driven fantasies, but the reality is that we have some serious problems with the intellectual and physical development of our population.
No one can - in reason or good conscience - criticize the efforts to combat obesity or our incredibly POOR level of education.
Given the level of what asses for critical thinking from you, I wouldn't expect you to be a particularly good judge of students either. You have a far lower standard for what you accept as reasoning and cognition than I do.
If your students have learned to apply themselves coming from the military, good for them.
But the fact remains we are not recruiting great candidates for enlistment, and nothing you have written here refutes that.
Not just my opinion, or my interpretation. It is the conclusion of researchers, generals, and others.
How smart do you have to be to volunteer to be cannon fodder?
ReplyDeleteIn regards to attending government indoctrination centers, they don't teach or allow critical or independent thought, but they do encourage idiotic nationalism.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome to take my classes any time. I imagine that you would learn something, if you could bring yourself to listen.
GC writes:You're welcome to take my classes any time. I imagine that you would learn something, if you could bring yourself to listen.
ReplyDeleteI listen GC. The question is...what do you have to teach that isn't taught elsewhere, closer to home for me, or in good books?
Why would I seek out a teacher who makes the mistakes in fact and cognitive bias that you do, rather than someone else on the topics you teach?
I believe that education is something one does all the time, both formally and informally. Not everything one learns comes from a classroom, nor is everything you teach what you intend to teach.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteIndeed, I'm a lifelong learner, too. I didn't start out on the pro-gun side of things. Perhaps you'd do well to rethink your positions.
"During the days of the draft, we for the most part did not draft those in college,we first went after those who were unable, either financially or intellectually to go."
ReplyDeleteThat is not accurate. When I enlisted, before the lottery was started, a student seeking to avoid the draft needed a status 2S deferment or some other deferment to stay out of the draft. After the lottery started only a small percentage of men who were drafted were able to game the system--unless of course they were connected.
I think I mentioned it on another post but I think that the high prevalence of PTSD and incidents like the marines pissing on the bodies of their enemies are, in no small part due to the relaxation of standards, particularly for the army, for volunteers.
My next door neighbor is going to Afghanistan at the end of the month and I hope he makes it back in one piece. He has a wife and three kids. He was out of the military for several years and then lost a good paying job as a diagnostic imaging repair tech. Now, his primary job is CNBW specialist for his unit.
I have the utmost respect for good soldiers and nothing but disdain for the bad ones--as I do for cops and others who abuse their positions and authority for personal reasons.