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."
bewbs? (Score:1, Interesting)
Interesting that they can write a whole article on redesigning body armor for women and there's not a single reference to tatas.
Are the main differences really torso length, should width, and waist size? Do chesticles not really factor into the redesign? Or are the authors just being polite and not highlighting jugs as a factor?
Re:bewbs? (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite frankly, all but the extremely endowed will have minimal problems in the chest area. They're not exactly wearing pushup bras into combat obviously, and most women wearing a sports bra don't have an appreciably bigger chest than the average male body builder (though obviously the dimensions will be different and there will always be outliers). The areas they are concerned about are those that either cause the body army to slip out of position by not being adjustable to smaller frames (shoulders and waist) or hamper mobility (torso length).
Oblig WW2 reference (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:That's good news! (Score:5, Interesting)
Body armor designed specifically for gay soldiers.
Extensive historical research (no, I'm not kidding) points out that the army with the most stylish and fashionable uniform almost always loses the war. Just saying. Probably don't want to go there.
Re:"...has identified several problem areas and... (Score:2, Interesting)
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 but you must feel pretty stupid because the shells eject from the side downwards, not back upwards at the person firing the gun, that would be a stupid design. More than likely she was a passenger in the vehicle and one fell down on her. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb3eoKhRS9A [youtube.com]
Re:My novel idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, compared to most other things military spends money on, developing better infantry armor is very cheap (look up the cost of a single Tomahawk missile for comparison).