US Army Developing Armor Tailored For Females 310
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."
Re:"...has identified several problem areas and... (Score:5, Informative)
It's not a chainmail bikini and hence the armor rating is really shitty when worn by females.
Re:"...has identified several problem areas and... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:bewbs? (Score:4, Informative)
I noticed that too. Especially considering the vast breast size differences between women. TFA focussed very much on how to make it fit nicely around a woman's waist... which I don't think is the key problem spot.
Also reading this story, my first reaction was "don't they have that already?" Long time ago I remember watching a documentary about civilian type body armour, bullet proof vests, typically for use by private security guards or police. The host also asked the manufacturer about vests for women. The answer was simply: yes, we have those as well, they come with cups.
Torso length and shoulder width tend to scale together and there will be various sizes as even men come in different sizes, the fact that women have a problem for shoulder width and torso length is probably mainly because they wear oversized so that their boobs fit in. That is also an issue with general combat uniforms, which tend to be designed for male figures, so women have to take too big sizes.
Re:bewbs? (Score:5, Informative)
But the smaller waist to shoulder ratio and torso length cause real issues. The old style rucksacks that I had to carry came only in one length, long. They had an external metal frame and was designed to end at a man's waist. The metal sat against the upper curves of my buttocks. After wearing that for a full day, I was rubbed raw and bleeding. We learned to tape padding to the frames to minimize the damage they caused.
There were lots of other issues with gear that couldn't be adjusted to fit the female form, like the webbing that was designed to be snug around the hips and worked for the guys, not so much for the gals. It would rise up to our waist and twist around. We were constantly fighting to keep it in place.
Re:bewbs? (Score:5, Informative)
Or maybe they're just being professionals rather than juveniles.
Ah yes. Let's see
and from the video
Could they perhaps more usefully say something like:
I'm sure some on Slashdot will go "snigger snigger; he said 'breast'; snigger sigger" like a beavis and butthead edition, but that's not something that a "professional" should even notice. Being clearer and more direct would make the whole thing need much less discussion.
Re:"...has identified several problem areas and... (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention the fact that a .50 cal is not used to "shoot freedom fighters" as the Geneva conventions specifically restricts the use of such weapons to enemy vehicles and equipment.
This is a common misconception. There's nothing in the Geneva conventions that prohibits the use of .50 BMG and similar cartridges against human targets. The restrictions on weapons used in warfare actually come from the Hague conventions, and they only prohibit the use of expanding or exploding bullets (hence why militaries all use FMJ).
Your friends were either bullshitting you, or they misunderstood the nature of the restriction (you wouldn't want to waste these kinds of bullets on soft targets not in cover when a GPMG in .308 would do just fine)
Re:"...has identified several problem areas and... (Score:4, Informative)
You're ignoring the fact that there are often several people and objects near to you when you are shooting. Ejected casings hit things and bounce around before hitting the ground. Personally I've had my own brass hit me or go down my shirt a few times. It happens, it's hot, and it burns.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
uh no.. mainly it was because in the field, soldiers depend on one another to have roughly equivalent physical ability.. such as the ability to drag an injured 200+lb soldier and his 60-100lb pack and equipment to safety if he was hit.. most women cannot do this no matter how much they train.. there are also inter-gender psychological considerations that simply don't exist when everyone is the same gender. for example, the male-bonding tendency, one of the key psychological mechanisms keeping a unit together under ridiculous stress, is easily shattered when the men switch to instinctive chivalry for present women. these dynamics are a biological high priority and cause distractions that, under extreme stress, get people killed.
physically, women just aren't as strong or as robust, even when healthy and as fit as possible. the more extreme the situations the more likely they slow the unit down while taking up slots that more able men can take. it's like the olympics where they sacrifice better performing male athletes for women, except the stakes are much higher. the PT regimens for women are tame for a reason.. most fit 14yo highschool boys could pass them with no problem, yet women get paid the same pay for the same rank, and men are expected to treat them as equals when they clearly are not.
these are (some of) the facts. hiding behind political correctness doesn't change them, but it does prevent society from accepting them which is quite harmful to both genders.