In this age of manueverability and firepower at the expense of armor/defense, I find it odd that social/political pressures at home are forcing the armed forces to go to "extremes" in order to protect our soldiers - at the expense of their ability to complete the mission.

There's a reason the knights of old became obsolete - they were expensive, immobile and bested by the longbow, gunpowder and peasant soldiers sliding a blade between the joints of the plate armor.

Greyhawk, have you heard anything about soldiers being forced to pay for armor lost when they were wounded? I encountered a link to one story that I thought would be an anti-war fable, but it's documented in a newspaper: http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/2006020623

The story begins, "The last time 1st Lt. William “Eddie” Rebrook IV saw his body armor, he was lying on a stretcher in Iraq, his arm shattered and covered in blood."

Apparently he had to pay $700 for it because no one recorded its ultimate disposition.

Interesting, Clay. I found that article myself and posted about it on my blog. IIRC, I originally found the link in one of the European newsgrags; think maybe the BBC. Pretty crappy, frankly, if true (and I assume it is).

Blog ON, y'all...

ClayNY, that LT is being charged for the armor because his unit failed to turn in the proper paperwork. Any equipment issued becomes the responsibility of the soldier to keep and maintain. If you lose it or damage it, you are responsible for replacing it.... Now there are ways to "write off" equipment damaged or destroyed in the line of duty. It sounds like his unit just didn't do it. And as an officer, it is assumed he is responsible enough to check to make sure he is squared away before punching out...