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."
"...has identified several problem areas and..." (Score:5, Funny)
Who ever considered breasts a problem area? Seriously...
edit: captcha spelled "maternal". Hah.
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, Funny)
Its a requirement to see this video before you fully appreciate the modern female's body armor needs. [youtube.com]
Re:"...has identified several problem areas and... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"...has identified several problem areas and... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An M2 [wikipedia.org], probably.
Re: (Score:2)
If the M2 is mounted on an open-top vehicle (which historically was pretty common for it), the downward ejection of spent brass isn't necessarily the safest path. Given its abilitty in Iraq to turn the tide of battle shortly after arriving on the scene, I doubt many were complaining at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
As an example, my wife has two scars between her breasts from burning hot shells from a 50 cal machine gun while she was in Iraq. Because she's a D-cup the body armor she was wouldn't fit tight against the neck area like it does on a man.. she describes it as nearly impossible to reach down and grab the shell, sometimes there wasn't time to do anything about it.
Body armor was not designed to protect against ejected shells.
A simple Army issued tee shirt would have done that.
Re: (Score:3)
No, big caliber shells can get extremely hot (to the point of glowing at night). A simple T-shirt won't help much if it gets stuck on you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
pics or it didnt happen
Grow up and show some respect, asshole.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, because I'm sure that Adult film producer (866485) would be very offended at the thought of women's breasts being considered sexual.
Re: (Score:3)
She got scarred in a very personal place, as a direct result of serving her country,
She got scarred (if it happened at all) because she was flaunting her boobs instead of wearing a regulation Army uniform.
All it takes to stop ejected brass is a tee shirt or buttoned collar. Body armor is not designed for this.
Take a look at the uniform for that region:
http://www.militaryclothing.com/img/DCU%20Quick%20Find.JPG [militaryclothing.com]
The story is apocryphal. A scam. And you bit.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? So a 0.3 mm thick cotton shirt is supposed to disperse the heat from a recently ejected 50 cc shell...how exactly? Especially when it's trapped against the chest by what amounts to a stiff board?
How? By not letting the casing down there in the first place.
Did you even LOOK at the jpg you included in your quote?
The direct quote was BETWEEN her breasts, not against a breast.
There is no way this happens unless she violates combat regs and leaves the shirt off to show off her guns.
But again, given the posters name, Adult film producer, you have to assume the story is totally made up.
Re:"...has identified several problem areas and... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I'm not so sure about that any more. Certainly my girl friends (american sense - not sexual sense) tend to show off their scars quite a bit; but that's more to do with shared extreme sport-accident culture and possibly cesarians etc. Girls in Europe definitely go in bikinis or topless on the beach after a cesarian no problem. Some of my friends are even pretty cool about some (pretty limited) facial damage up to and including slightly visible broken noses, though I bet anything ugly on the face would be a problem. I guess for "army girls" the situation would not be much different.
Good points all.
It's great to hear that some stereotypes are being overturned, although the caesarian scars are a direct consequence of childbearing, a 'traditional' feminine role (not like it can be considered traditionally masculine, I suppose :) So showing off their scars in that respect basically shows 'look, I'm fertile, I've borne children', and they're in a location that's easy to cover up. Are they as carefree about appendectomy or kidney transplant scars, I wonder?
You're right, though, that 'army
Re:"...has identified several problem areas and... (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"...has identified several problem areas and... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that seriousness lasts just as long as the first guy taking shots at you. And of course there is plenty of photographic evidence of US troops manning .50 cal machine guns against Taleban for example, plastered across front pages of websites and magazines. And those guys going generally attack on foot.
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: (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:"...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: (Score:3)
And the ejected shells often fall into the humvee where the other soldiers are riding. Depending on the direction the gun was firing she was likely either the driver or a passenger.
Re: (Score:3)
The Taliban formed long after the Soviets left Afghanistan so they were never funded as part of that war.
The Taliban are only in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the poster's Slashdot name, the entire story is probably made up.
An army issue tee shirt would have prevented ejected brass from finding its way to her boobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Had she been dressed with everything she was "supposed" to be wearing.
It's a desert. Perhaps she didn't have one (supplies problem, or was destroyed for some other reason such as makeshift repair) or she simply was not wearing it due to heat.
Re: (Score:2)
pics or it didnt happen
here ya go: http://jgiampietro.deviantart.com/art/Wonder-Woman-in-Warrior-Armor-63771883 [deviantart.com]
Re: (Score:2)
pics or it didnt happen
These new memes just don't have the character of the ld ones. This is /., not 4chan, the quote is:
Natalie Portman, naked and petrified, hot 50cal casings down her shirt! Mmmmmm
Re: (Score:3)
Who ever considered breasts a problem area? Seriously...
edit: captcha spelled "maternal". Hah.
I think they're referring to the maternity wear. Men's tac vests are too loose around the waste on hourglass non-prego women and too tight on the preggos.
My novel idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
How will that make defense contractors rich?
Re: (Score:3)
richER
They are already the 1%ers and getting hefty tax brakes while the rest of us foot the bill for their wars and infrastructure
Re: (Score:3)
If we do that, we'll never have a Tony Stark though...
Re:My novel idea (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Instead of making tanks, I guess they could make bridges, new Fiber Optic deployments to rural areas, schools, etc
Re:My novel idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
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).
Re:My novel idea (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
Given how friendly fire, ...appears to be such huge risks
"Targets in sight. Size 6 soldiers, activity low crawling toward our fighting position, can't ID uniform, in no mans zone, can't ID unit, time is now, looks like standard infantry equipment. Log it for intel. Assumed enemy combatants."
"Logged. Targets acquired. Requesting permission to fire mortars under ROE?"
"Deny Deny Deny their 60 gunner just stood up and she's wearing a chainmail bikini"
Don't laugh it could happen
Re:My novel idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Since there will be conflicts (or at least preparation and equipping for them) the problem still remains even if we follow your suggestion.
Complete world peace with no armed conflicts is simply not going to happen as long as their is competition for resource and space.
So let's focus on the actual problem of properly protecting and equipping our female soldiers.
Re: (Score:2)
their = there ... damn brain.
Re:My novel idea (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Sounds good (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Hit it! (Score:5, Funny)
Sweet! Booty armor!
If recent threads are anything to go by... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Oblig WW2 reference (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
After all, if women aren't up to the job of wearing body armour, they shouldn't join the army.
The counter of course is that it's not they aren't up to it, it's that their form (vs the male form) allows for gaps which can lead them to be exposed to dangers.
As another ./er noted--his wife had gaps at the top of her body armor allowing spent shells to fall between her armor and skin, this lead to physical scars and as someone who has had a shell land in his shirt I can say firsthand that it can affect your aim
Doesn't look effective... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
From STNG it always struck me as funny that the Klingon women wore body armor, but in the name of "Roddenberry Costume Design" that armor always showed cleavage. Great! Put body (bawdy?) armor on the women of a race that's really into personal combat, then leave a gap in that armor right over the heart!
Re: (Score:3)
From STNG it always struck me as funny that the Klingon women wore body armor, but in the name of "Roddenberry Costume Design" that armor always showed cleavage. Great! Put body (bawdy?) armor on the women of a race that's really into personal combat, then leave a gap in that armor right over the heart!
The Klingon eight-chambered heart is further down, beneath their three lungs.
Re: (Score:3)
80s? Ha, trying playing WoW today. Male armor gets more and more bad ass as it gets better and better. Female armor inexplicably gets skimpier and skimpier (despite being the same physical piece of armor). I you could argue that they're parodying the stuff from the 80s... if there were one or two pieces like that, but it's pretty much all the high level stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! I've never played WoW, but I guess some things never change. heh ;-)
No they really don't (Score:3)
Wow is funny because the same armour will look different on the male and female models. You put it on a male and it is a shirt, you put it on a female and it is a halter top, that kind of thing.
I used to think it was just to appeal to the stereotypical male gamer crowd but many women want their characters to be cutesy as well. One problem WoW had in terms of side balance when it was released was the Horde was ugly. All the characters on that side were not very pretty, whereas the Alliance, the other side ha
Re: (Score:2)
Oh it long, long predates the 80s. You need to go to the D&D inspiration material. Not so much of it in LOTR (49%) but a whole honking lot of it in the old pulp serials (the other 49%).
The last 2% has something to do with derping around with dice or something. ;)
Obligitory (Score:3)
http://www.dorkly.com/comic/41589/rpg-lady-armor [dorkly.com]
Wow (Score:2)
I should be surprised that this hasn't already been done, but given that it's the US military, I'm not surprised at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Technically Woman are not allowed to be on Front Line Infantry, but they can be pilots, drivers, and many "non-combative rolls" However... Modern Warfare, blurs the line, you may be the truck driver, but if you get under attack, she will pick up a gun and fight with the rest of the men. That and when you join the military you are not expecting you job to be comfortable. So a woman in wearing slightly uncomfortable body armor, isn't going to complain much about it. She may do some minor alterations herself
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.
That's good news! (Score:2)
They finally saw the women are a little bit different from men.
Next step?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Body armor designed specifically for gay soldiers.
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: (Score:2)
the army with the most stylish and fashionable uniform
Forget the Microsoft reality show [slashdot.org]. I want to see "Project Runway: Afghanistan", with a list of functional requirements and 24 hours to retool the uniform/body armor to get as close to them as possible.
Re: (Score:3)
As usual.
No combat-ready unit has ever passed inspection.
No inspection-ready unit has ever passed combat.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it's just a joke?
Re: (Score:2)
As the listener, it is your obligation to make so
Re: (Score:2)
No more than I think all Anonymous Coward posters are raving lunatics just because you are.
Timeline: ...follow the pattern
1. Military allows female soldiers
2. Military allows gay soldiers
3. Military develops female-specific body armor
4.
Where the hell did you get the transsexual crap from? Other than your subconcious, I mean.
Consumer (Score:4, Funny)
They're also releasing a consumer line of female body armor, available in 28 different colors and patterns including taupe, seafoam green, mauve, purple camo, plaid and hot pink polka dots.
Dragon skin solves this problem (Score:3)
Re:Dragon skin solves this problem (Score:4, Funny)
The fact that it's better armor than Kevlar + trauma plates is a nice bonus =)
Against most foes, sure. But what if we end up at war with the bowmen of Esgaroth? You'd be signing our soldiers' death warrants!
Re: (Score:2)
Military Contract (Score:3)
identified several problem areas
Have someone from the army contact me.
For $2.55 million, plus cost overruns, I can identify two problem areas.
-
Sad on two counts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dear god, I hope they don't take their inspiration from video games [penny-arcade.com]!
Re: (Score:2)
Ashley's armor from ME1 always reminded me of the princess' from the old Voltron cartoon...
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).
Re:bewbs? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're a huge part of the difference, yes.
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:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither is relevant to the topic of being juvenile.
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: (Score:2)
I found that surprising too. All that discussion about small differences in the shape of the female frame, but no consideration for breast size. Must be very uncomfortable going all day with an armor plate smashing your boobs flat.
I have no personal experience with being in the army, but I'd expect the low percentage of women there get an above-average share of grief if they comp
Re: (Score:2)
I have no personal experience with being in the army, but I'd expect the low percentage of women there get an above-average share of grief if they complain.... I was just taking it for granted that the military had already adjusted to the presence of women, but apparently they're only just starting now....
I was in, well darn near 20 years ago. First of all field wear has always been pretty baggy... its not some kind of fantasy DND skin tight stuff. God only knows that the girls have going on in there. As a guy who likes to check out the ladies don't waste time looking at field wear.
The skin tight PT uniforms for workouts, oh yeah. The mini-skirted formal uniform (although admittedly not as good as old star trek uniforms), yeah. But they're not talking about those.
Whining always results in grief in .mil
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
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.
"Complex Curvatures" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was the refreshing aspect of the article. It went somewhere other than asking where the boobies go and if we should paint it pink.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, are you 12 years old or something? Just call them breasts and have done with it. Or are you afraid that using that word might give you cooties?
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.
At least one author considered this at length (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They did. What do you think "complex curvatures" and "waist is narrower relative to the chest" means?
Were you expecting them to say "chicks have big tits so we put some camo paint on a Xena costume?"
Re: (Score:2)
I sincerely hope you're joking. Flattened breasts are a pain and very uncomfortable. If you want to be at your best while on the field, it's not the best way to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, it has a detachable midriff, and memory foam in the bra cups. The Mk. 82's won't be the only bombshells on the field now.