Watch Live: Second House Hearing on IRS Scandal

Check Out Today’s Hot Posts on TheBlaze Blog!

Technology

The Army’s Latest Body Armor Innovation Is for…Female Soldiers

Sep. 19, 2012 8:32am Liz Klimas

U.S. Army Tests New Body Armor for Female Soldiers

Female soldiers train on a firing range while wearing new body armor. (Photo: AP/Mark Humphrey)

FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. (TheBlaze/AP) — Although the Army may have been dinged for an expensive camouflage pattern developed as an improvement almost a decade ago — it was recently called a “colossal mistake” – the military is making strikes in improving the body armor for its female soldiers. Women from Fort Campbell deploying to Afghanistan are field testing the first Army body armor that is shorter and better tailored specifically to fit women’s physiques.

Members of a female engagement team from the 101st Airborne Division, who will be directly interacting with Afghan women during the coming deployment, have been equipped with the female prototypes of the newest generation of Army tactical vests.

On Tuesday at the Army installation on the Tennessee-Kentucky state line, the female soldiers showed the new features of the vests during qualification trials with their M4A1 rifles.

Watch this AP report where one female soldier says the new armor “felt like a dream” and enhanced her ability to perform her job in the military:

The 101st Airborne Division first suggested the idea of a better fitting vest for women in 2009 after female soldiers said that they often had trouble bending over, getting in and out of tight spaces like military vehicles, or positioning their rifles against their shoulders, said Maj. Joel Dillon, the Army’s assistant product manager for the vests.

Dillon said the long plates inside the vests would rub against their hips and cut into their thighs when they sat down.

After a lot of testing and measurements, the Army came up with a vest that is shorter to accommodate smaller torsos and has tailoring to fit closer to women’s chests. The new vest eliminates gaps between the material and the body and can be fitted with smaller side ballistic inserts for small waist sizes.

Spec. Sarah Sutphin removes her new body armor after training on a firing range. (Photo: AP/Mark Humphrey)

“With a vest that is too long, if they lay their rifle on the ground or drop it, it’s very hard to bend over to pick it up because that plate digs into their side. Now they can bend down and touch their toes and so they are more mobile and therefore you can get additional safety because you can perform better,” he said.

The vest has a lighter feel because it won’t rest on the female soldier’s shoulders like the male versions do, Dillion said.

The need for better-fitting armor became clear as women in the Army have been fighting on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan for years, Dillon said. He noted that women now make up 14 percent of the Army and are closer to combat than they have been previously.

Female soldiers from 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division are field testing the first Army body armor designed to fit women's physiques in preparation for their deployment to Afghanistan this fall. (Photo: AP/Mark Humphrey)

“These female engagement team soldiers will be going on patrol with infantry units, engaging with the female populace. Because of that, they are going to be on the front lines, so we want them to be the first to be fitted with this new armor,” he said.

Based on comments from 19 female soldiers wearing the new body armor, the Army will continue to make adjustments before going into large-scale production for the rest of the Army.

Spc. Gilliann Campbell, 22, who called the new body armor “a dream” compared to the old vests, is a former gymnast who said she feels much more flexible in the new vests and demonstrated that with a couple of cartwheels.

“I remember as a joke, my friends tipped me upside down and my old armor fell right off me. It didn’t fit me at all. But with this, I did a cartwheel when I first got it and it did not move at all,” she said.

Small differences in the vests, like having enough space on her shoulder to set her rifle or being able to get the armor on quickly, can be critical when you only have seconds to react in combat, Campbell said.

“I feel safer in my own abilities because it lets me do what I need to do as a soldier,” she said. “With my other armor, I felt a fear in my head that I was not able to perform to the best of my abilities. Now I can.”

Spc. Sarah Sutphin, 32, said women in the Army had to make adjustments to work around the limitations of the male-designed body armor. She said the benefits of a better fit became clear during their marksmanship training Tuesday. Previously they would have to shift the vests while firing their rifles, or move gear around on the vest so they could lie closer to ground, she said.

She said she didn’t even realize how ill-fitting the old vests were until they started trying out the new vests for the last couple of weeks.

Sutphin added, “We need to be protected and still do our jobs and be able to fire our weapons the same.”

–

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (67)

Alternative_Thought
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:15pm
@Chuck7884: It’ll be whatever the women tell them to do. Spineless men argh!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Alternative_Thought
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:13pm
It’s a shame when women are put out in front to defend men. How upside down can you get.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
urnokid
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:39pm
I wonder if dropping their rifles is a big problem.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ThoreauHD
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:31pm
Give them armor and don’t allow them to vote. That’s nice.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
frogg
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 4:14pm
Body armor that doesn’t fit is body armor that doesn’t work!!!!!! Of course women are built differently than men! It’s about time that the military woke up to it. I want every GI to come home safe and body armor that fits correctly to the body is one big step to make that happen!!!!! Taking a crap or showering is a lot different than a round that goes in to the body because there was a gap between the armor and the body. Wake up you people. The didn’t make this stuff for social reasons they made it to save women’s lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RebelPatriot
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:26pm
  Millions spent by taxpayers to allow women to have body armor that fits to keep them from getting killed in the battlefield.
  
  No women in the battle field, no women killed because of poorly fitted armor, millions saved by taxpayers.
  
  The logic behind the progressives always starts with spending more money. This way they are always working toward their end goal of stripping the wealth from the people.
  
  Instead of paying for day care for single moms to motivate them to go back to work and school, our progressive socialist want to give them a check and food stamps and assisted housing while they sit on their asses and continue to have more children.
  
  All entitlements should have come with a job qualifier.
  
  Report this comment
- SgtB
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:41pm
  How about millions spent to keep servicemembers from having the lighter, better protecting, and more maneuverable dragon skin body armor? Face it, we are fighting a battle that is part of a false war that will solve nothing and won’t make us the least bit better off. I should know, I was there and my family has been there for years. It is idiotic to think that we need to spend a ton of borrowed Chinese cash to wage a pointless war on a non-descript enemy. It makes about as much sense as forcing sovereign Citizens to pay taxes on their income like they are indentured servants or using that money to provide for the “welfare” when the Constitution clearly says to promote it, not provide for it. Believe me, if they meant provide, they would have written it out just like “provide for the common defense”.
  
  Report this comment
watashbuddyfriend
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 3:55pm
Does one size fit all?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Libertyluvnmomma
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 3:37pm
This sounds a bit sexist.
You mean to tell me women ARE different than men?
Where is Gloria Alred when I need her?

~this is sarcasm` (GLM)

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RebelPatriot
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:46pm
  Sure women are different than men, they have separate sports in school, so if women have to do the same jobs in the military as men, maybe they should start playing the same sports as men in school.
  
  Why do we need a boys and girls soccer team? Baseball and softball? One basketball team? We all have to work the same jobs in the end.
  
  Title IX gave girls all these sports and pretty much killed public school budgets, along with the added tax dollars necessary to fund it.
  
  If the girls are great athletes they should be competing with boys in the same sports. How are men supposed to compete in the work place when they have been conditioned that women or different? When everyone says they are not? But everything shows us they are?
  
  Separate but equal, once again the progressives’ and their sexism.
  
  I know having armor that doesn’t fit kills female soldiers, how often does having a women in a platoon cause the death of a male soldier?
  
  Is it a fair assumption that physical requirements for employment have been lowered to allow females to qualify for employeement?
  
  Report this comment
MRMANN
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 3:33pm
Fantastic news, it’s about time

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Master_and_Commander
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 3:03pm
Fantastic story, always glad to see improvements being made in soldier’s protective equipment any time :)

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
drummergw
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 2:12pm
As a boomer who never served, I would like to thank all of you for your service to your country. But, we have a real problem with an administration who is very visibly disarming the United States and nobody, except the military, cares. Sure it’s the first duty of the President, but he has a fundraiser in Vegas and with JZ and Beyoncy. If this Commie wins re-election, you may really have to fight for your country. Will be with you all the way this time.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
mizzouwendy
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 2:03pm
I was a civilian agriculture advisor for 18 months in Iraq and went out on missions several times a week……….this body armour would have been nice to have! The old body armour dug into your shoulders, cut off circulation to your thighs when sitting in the MRAPs and as a 5’1 woman, better body armour when it is 128 degrees would have been a God send……God bless technology!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SgtB
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:47pm
  Really? We paid you to go over to Iraq and tell people there how to grow their own food? What a waste of your effort and our money! Those people have been living the way they are living now for a thousand years and their water problems were caused by Hussein diverting their rivers to the sea in a man made canal destroying the flood plains and quite alot of marsh land and crop land all in one fell swoop. Unless you were advising on how they could redirect the rivers to regain that lush land, I doubt you made any lasting impression.
  
  Report this comment
blackyb
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 2:00pm
Obama is demoralizing the troops, putting them in danger and making them targets for attack where they cannot defend themselves. This is the man who those voted for for are ignorant or wanting the U.S. to fail. Some changes need to be made in our government, but not by Obama for he is the enemy of the United States.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Drahcir
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 1:06pm
Whoa!

The photo is of women “training” on

the rifle range–using “cheater” blocks

to support the rifle; an accommodation,

no doubt, to make females’ target scores

more closely match the better scores of

the non-cheating males–for public consumption/

propaganda, to hide the tragic/deadly femini-

zation of male combat units.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- jay1975
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 1:53pm
  Holy crap are you a sexist idiot. Those “cheater blocks” are replacing sandbags for the prone supported position that every Soldier fires their first 20 rounds from during their semi-annual qualification. Grow up.
  
  Report this comment
- lifelibertyandthepursuitofhappiness
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 4:07pm
  well what do you expect – the Marine Corps is the mens department of the DOD.
  
  Report this comment
- Sgt_Rock
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 4:42pm
  They’re also used for the task of “zeroing” the weapon, which requires a good, stable platform. With the addition of optics it becomes even more important for “co-witnessing” the red dot to the iron sights.
  
  Report this comment
- Drahcir
  Posted on September 20, 2012 at 11:00am
  Jay1975, to answer, your lame claim : I’d fired/tested “expert” during my Marine Corps training in ’67. At no time were we allowd to rest the rifle barrel on any object. I’m both sexist (women in combat put men at risk) and FACTUALIST(those cheater blocks are an accommodation). Feminization of our armed services puts America in grave danger. And as for women in the IDF, they have a history of retreating during actual combat wlile men are distracted by their natural tendency to protect their women. No doubt, you believe those cop shows having 110lb. women flipping/beating 200lb. men.
  
  Report this comment
katzkiner
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 12:45pm
The AR platform did hold the world record for accuracy around.2006.<7 inches@ 1000yds.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
katzkiner
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 12:41pm
Been shooting AKs since 1968,.NEVER had one jam. Nothing is faster in CQC. Punches thru almost anything. 1. shot stops.the enemy. Was never mean to be a sniper weapon.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
pandora
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 12:16pm
Our military deserves everything we can give them to be effective and safe. The have no commander-in-chief except the one who doesn’t seem to like them at all. In fact he would rather we lose every fight. Why? Ask him why he funds the Muslim Brotherhood with our money.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Karama
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:57am
I like it! Too bad they still won’t go with my idea. A chain mail chastity belt bikini so we can offend the terrorists before the ladies kill them. They hate women over there.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Chuck7884
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 11:59am
  General Pershing had a much better plan when dealing with Muslims you ought to read how he handled it.;
  
  Report this comment
- Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 12:12pm
  You mean this urban legend?
  http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_black_jack_pershing.htm
  
  Report this comment
- MCGIRV
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 1:32pm
  Perhaps the urban legend method should be tried anyway.
  
  Report this comment
- Chinishque
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:28pm
  Just because one source says that he doesnt believe that it is true because he has not “Read” anything about and that he “Thinks” it would be contrary to his personality, doesnt mean that it didnt happen. You would probably be surprised to find out how many “urban legends” and based in fact. I knew a very nice Muslim gent who owned a Subway shop and he couldnt even think about touching anything in the shop he owned because many of the meats contained pork. I asked him about the idea that contamination would keep a person from paradise and his reply was, “How can something or someone be the presence of God if they are unclean.” This fear is real and palpable to muslims, dont doubt it.
  
  Report this comment
jungle J
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:49am
The more we say that men and women are the same the more the degenerates control freedom. We are a country run by degenerates for degenerates…the sane know.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
BSdetector
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:35am
I thought they didn’t allow women in combat.

Why do we need to spend millions to equip non-combat personnel with body armor???

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- liberalescheisskopf
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:47am
  It’s for when the women find themselves in a combat situation, duh.
  
  Report this comment
- muffythetuffy
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:52am
  WHAT DO YOU EXPECT THEM TO SAY?
  
  Women are not supposed to be in combat but they need armor?
  
  Our greens eating, gay, ***** dominated, smoke free, bi-lingual, un-armed US Armed forces are really going to have a tough time fighting a real male army like Russian, Chinese, or Haitian armed forces. The US Armed Forces will not even protect its own troops on its own bases right here in America. The biggest problem facing the US Armed Forces must be how to get the stains out of the sheets.
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck7884
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:56am
  women have a right 782 gear as the men do.In the Marines everyone is a rifleman first and any other mos is secondary. I suppose the Army is the same you can correct me if I am wrong!.
  
  Report this comment
- muffythetuffy
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:00am
  The US Army choose a camouflage pattern that appealed to homosexuals and women and that could be seen anywhere on a battle field. Maybe the Army will choose orange. The US Army choose a low powered light weight toy rifle that women could use too. The AK47 universal rifle has twice the range of the toy rifle but homosexuals and women don’t like and fear the loud noise and recoil of the AK47.
  
  Report this comment
- MusicManAK
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:02am
  Male soldiers are not allowed to search the female nationals. So, you will have a number of female soldiers with the teams that go out into the towns and villages.
  
  Report this comment
- Not Quite
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:43am
  During the beginning of the Iraqi conflict, women were and still are involved in convoy operations all the time. Convoys were always coming under attack. You don’t need to be in a combat MOS to see combat. I for one am glad they are taking these types of things, like body armor for women, into consideration. For too long the military has tried to revolve around a ‘one size fits all’ mentality and it’s not practical and will just get your people killed.
  
  Report this comment
- Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 12:14pm
  @ Muffy The Tuffy:
  Screw you. I love my AK-47! :-P
  
  Report this comment
- OhioRifleman
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 12:32pm
  @ Muffy
  
  Where the hell do you get the thought that an AK has twice the range of an M4? I have never heard that anywhere. Cite source, please?
  
  Report this comment
- katzkiner
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 12:51pm
  Asymmetrical warfare the frontlines are everywhere.
  
  Report this comment
- lifelibertyandthepursuitofhappiness
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 4:10pm
  yea – what if they get shot at while bending over.
  
  Report this comment
- WindyDualism
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:57pm
  Have they yet broached how to keep females from whistling on combat jumps?
  
  Report this comment
- Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:24pm
  @ Windy Dualism:
  Maybe they just take away their pea whistles, ya sexist bastard.
  
  Report this comment
- SerikFox
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:37pm
  @Muffy Light guns are better in the field; it has nothing to do with range or any of that. In fact, Ak’s are not as accurate as many other rifles like M4′s. The only advantage that AK’s have is their dependability; they are low maintenance and hard to jam. However, in other aspects, they are not as useful as M4′s, M16′s, or many other rifles.
  
  Report this comment
Landon410
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:13am
i have some digital camo that I use for hunting, deer don’t seem to see it, ha, I know i know, not even in the same league let alone ball park…

I dont think we should use camo at all, I think we should WW2 style carpet bomb all these enemies, and if they are too scared to fight like men, and hide behind women and children, well… sorry kids… but sins of the father…….

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Chuck7884
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:25am
  I Agree why spend a million dollars on a five dollar target.un less the fighter jocks can’t drop a plane ole rockeye without a guidance package and put it into the pickle barrel like they use to be able to.
  
  Report this comment
- muffythetuffy
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:09am
  OBAMA IS CUTTING AND ELIMINATING AMERICA’S ARMED FORCES AS PROMISED.
  
  The $500 Billion he is taking away from the US Armed Forces is being used to fund and equip his Domestic Military Force that he promised would be better funded and equipped to meet his domestic military objectives. Like Hitler, Obama tells everyone what he plans to do and is ignored. The only thing Americans see is his nice satanic smile.
  
  Report this comment
Chuck7884
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:07am
I just can’t imagine soldiers running around doing cartwheels on the parade deck! great Discipline in the Army I guess.goofing of fo the press?.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Capt_Gregg
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:53am
If we have to have female soldiers in even potential combat situations, then we have to make sure they are adequately equipped. My concern is not whether they can do the job (just look at the IDF), but whether any advantage of having female soldiers justifies or outweighs the logistical problems and expense caused by their presence.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Uncle Dave
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 1:35pm
  The first really competent comment I have seen here. If you want to see an army that really knows what its doing, look at Israel; surrounded by hostiles they have fought back every attempted attack for over 50 years and they are still there. Their only real enemies are US Democratic Presidents who hold meetings with terrorist leaders then tell Israel they have to give up more land. If you’re on Facebook, like “Women of the IDF” to see some beautiful Warrior Women that can truly handle themselves on the battlefield.
  
  Report this comment
GA_dandelion
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:50am
I have to wonder how much we spent to figure out that girls are not shaped like boys.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Jewish Avenger
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:00am
  Billions.. .and it took the expertise of every governments kids research to do it.
  
  Report this comment
- Landon410
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:07am
  i bet they did a study as to the feasability of a study, then hired a think take to think about the results, and sure enough the $10,000,000 think tank agreed that girls have boobies
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:37am
  They had to cut through all of that red tape where the left constantly said that boys and girls are just alike. At least Time Magazine admitted that we are different almost ten years ago.
  
  Report this comment
poorrichard09
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:49am
I thought maybe they were going back to the “bullet bras” of the 1950′s-with real bullets! ;-D

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Gary_K
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:48am
I was in Germany when I first saw our troops wearing the new uniform, I thought at the time that they actually glowed in the sunlight and could be seen at a great distance.

Nothing like making our boys a visible target.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:25am
  I hope you mean that abominable ACU. I’ve been retired for 16 years, and am glad that we did not have to wear that thing. After watching one of the episodes on the History Channel about snipers with two U.S. Army soldiers on a sniping range at Benning. Those ACUs with those Southern Pines in the background made the uniform look like Cook’s Whites to me. Glad the Army is phasing it out now. What were they thinking?
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck7884
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:37am
  Out doing the Marines for the chocolate chip pattern they came out with :p
  
  Report this comment
- RLTW
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 11:54am
  The question at this point is what will the new homosexual body armor look like?
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck7884
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 12:08pm
  Actually the the bathrooms in general areas Unless they go unisex bathrooms I,E both males and females share the same Latrine or Head.going to be interest in the military sense a gay male would proclaim himself female or a female proclaim her self male. Anyone want to take a guess.how the military is gonna handle this?.
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck7884
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 12:16pm
  And also which dress uniforms to wear I might add
  
  Report this comment
- jay1975
  Posted on September 19, 2012 at 1:58pm
  CHUCK7884, gays have been serving openly for over a year now and we are getting by just just fine with them, so no need for your ridiculous concerns.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.