US Troop Body Armour Part Testing Concerns

05/08/2011 Posted by Armed Forces International's Defence Correspondent

A report produced by the Pentagon has suggested that body armour inserts that enhance the bullet-proof vests worn by US Army troops fall below require standards.

Unsatisfactory testing is cited as the reason why these accessories, now part of the frontline equipment for US troops engaged in conflicts including Afghanistan, have sparked such concern.

The armoured vest inserts are typically manufactured from Kevlar - a type of synthetic fibre that's five times stronger than steel, if equivalent weights of each material are compared side-by-side. In military terms, Kevlar's used in protective clothing to stop shrapnel, especially small calibre projectiles, from being able to pierce the body.

Body Armour Testing

The body armour testing concerns mentioned by the Pentagon all refer to inserts produced over a three-year timeframe, beginning in 2004. Seven different companies were involved in their construction as part of a multi-billion dollar US Army contract.

Specific environmental conditions should have been in place when these inserts were being tested, requiring the ambient temperature to be no less than 58 degrees Fahrenheit and no more than 78 degrees Fahrenheit. Likewise, humidity levels should have been somewhere between 40 and 60 per cent.

US Troop Body Armour Parts

These conditions were only present for 48 per cent of the samples tested, meaning 52 per cent of can't formally be considered suitable for battlefield use. As to the number of US troop body armour parts potentially affected, that - says the Pentagon - extends into the millions.

"The Army lacks assurance that 5.1 million ballistic inserts acquired through the seven contracts provide appropriate protection", the report explained.

"We determined that ballistic testing and quality assurance for Interceptor Body Armor inserts did not have proper controls to ensure that the ballistic inserts met contract requirements.

"Consequently, the Army cannot be sure that the appropriate level of protection has been achieved."

Armed Forces International will return to this subject in future News Items.