Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military United States News

US Army Developing Armor Tailored For Females 310

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the still-waiting-for-armored-skants dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Army Developing Armor Tailored For Females

Comments Filter:
  • My novel idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MyLongNickName (822545) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @10:56AM (#40764301) Journal

    My novel idea is reducing injuries and fatalities through getting involved in fewer conflicts. It is a radical idea, but it just might work.

  • Re:My novel idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by h4rr4r (612664) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @10:58AM (#40764333)

    How will that make defense contractors rich?

  • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @10:59AM (#40764337) Journal

    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.

  • by Uthic (931553) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @10:59AM (#40764339)
    All my gaming experience has taught me that it should be skin-tight and leaves arms, legs and midriff bare.
  • Re:My novel idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @11:01AM (#40764373)

    While I agree in principle, that doesn't remove the need for this kind of advancement. Regardless of how peaceful and friendly you are, there's always a chance of someone, somewhere attacking you, at which point you probably want to have decent gear for your armed forces.

  • Re:My novel idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @11:13AM (#40764497)

    My novel idea is reducing injuries and fatalities through getting involved in fewer conflicts. It is a radical idea, but it just might work.

    That's not something the Army has authority to do, though. Talk to the politicians if you want our military commitments to change.

  • Re:bewbs? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DerekLyons (302214) <fairwater@gmail. c o m> on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @11:13AM (#40764499) Homepage

    Are the main differences really torso length, should width, and waist size?

    They're a huge part of the difference, yes.
     

    Or are the authors just being polite and not highlighting jugs as a factor?

    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.

  • Re:bewbs? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @11:21AM (#40764607)

    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.

  • Re:My novel idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by N0Man74 (1620447) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @11:28AM (#40764695)

    Sure, but can we compare and contrast these two things?

    1) Having a reasonable standing army, in case it is needed.

    2) Making military spending to be one of the biggest priorities of the country, showering military contractors with money in the hopes of being the most powerful military in the world, and allowing rich and powerful men who profit from war have too much influence on whether we enter conflicts.

  • by CCarrot (1562079) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @11:30AM (#40764737)

    pics or it didnt happen

    Grow up and show some respect, asshole.

  • Re:My novel idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by arth1 (260657) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @11:32AM (#40764761) Homepage Journal

    While I agree in principle, that doesn't remove the need for this kind of advancement. Regardless of how peaceful and friendly you are, there's always a chance of someone, somewhere attacking you, at which point you probably want to have decent gear for your armed forces.

    Given how friendly fire, negligent discharge, fragging and collateral damage appears to be such huge risks, I think they should look at redesigning the back first, not the front...

  • Sounds good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @11:42AM (#40764929)

    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.

  • Re:My novel idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dpilot (134227) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @11:45AM (#40765001) Homepage Journal

    I largely agree with you, but I don't really believe that competition for resource and space is the cause of most armed conflicts today. Instead I believe over-sized egos and over-hyped nationalism exaggerate the perception of competition for resource and space. War is usually good for the leaders, no matter how much they may say (and perhaps truly feel) they hate it.

  • Re:My novel idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by vlm (69642) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @11:47AM (#40765031)

    How will that make defense contractors rich?

    See "cold war" and "MAD" on wikipedia.

    Not too many 9 MT h-bombs have been detonated in anger, but a hell of a lot of money got made off them.

    Also see american chemical weapons, american bio weapons, etc. I love those things... so awful they never got used.

  • Re:bewbs? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SoupGuru (723634) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @11:48AM (#40765047)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @11:58AM (#40765195)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @12:18PM (#40765519)

    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.

  • by CCarrot (1562079) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @12:21PM (#40765549)

    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?

  • by Vitriol+Angst (458300) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @01:37PM (#40766685)

    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!

The most delightful day after the one on which you buy a cottage in the country is the one on which you resell it. -- J. Brecheux

Working...