< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: NY Times distorts body armour story to give negative impression


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Friday, August 26, 2005

NY Times distorts body armour story to give negative impression

Perhaps media bias like this is partly why Professor Bainbridge is feeling so down at the moment.

The US Army ordered new Interceptor body armour a while ago which can defeat standard 7.62mm AK-47 and also newer body armour piercing bullets. This is a major improvement over the 1990's era body armour, which could not even defeat standard AK-47 bullets.

Here's how the NY Times reported it:
For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks of insurgents.

The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use. But more than a year after military officials initiated an effort to replace the armor with thicker, more resistant plates, tens of thousands of soldiers are still without the stronger protection because of a string of delays in the Pentagon's procurement system.

ยท Linked Article

Posted by Antarctic Lemur | 8/26/2005 05:57:00 am


Blogger Chefen said...

Ah you see soldiers should only go into battle with body armour capable of resisting everything up to and including multiple rounds in the back from an M1A1 tank. Otherwise the gummint is just sacrificing the kids. But what the hell does the NYT know of or care about body armour? How else do you explain them dying at a lower rate than peacetime?

8/26/2005 06:54:00 am  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Lets not forget the emphasis in the media of the US Army missing its targets for new recruits, but that same media ignoring the increased rate of re-enlistments, especially those soldiers from units serving in Iraq.

8/26/2005 06:58:00 am  
Blogger Chefen said...

As an aside, Sweden stayed out of the war and only does "popular" UN mandated peacekeeping. They are regularly missing recruitment targets and they are way way lower than what the US would need, by proportion. Explain that NYT.

8/26/2005 07:00:00 am  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

I believe the NZ Army is short several hundred full-time soldiers, equating to what... 0.5%-1% of its combat strength?

Also the last time the US Army failed to meet recruitment targets was in the late 90's, during the dotcom boom.

8/26/2005 07:03:00 am  
Blogger Whaleoil said...

Don't mean to be picky but the Ak-47 uses 7.62x39mm ammunition not 7.67.

8/26/2005 08:40:00 am  
Blogger Murray said...

What is really failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks of insurgents is the MSM who sought to prevent the dissarming of Saddam as required by 17 consequtive UN resoultions, tired to enusre the military failure of the invasion and are now celebrating every death in manner that makes them look more like Islamic radicals than human beings in their efforts to destroy the establishment of stability and self rule in Iraq.

Because their being right, no matter how obviously wrong they are, is more important than any number of lives. Be they Iraqi, foriegn terrorists or US lead forces.

The first three rows in the next war crimes trials should not include anyone who isn't from the western media.

8/26/2005 09:15:00 am  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

sorry Whaleoil. Should know to check my facts (should have remembered that though). In my defense it was very very early.

8/27/2005 04:54:00 am  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Whale Oil, even I saw that as well. Thought, oh well, don't wave the bat. Let it go through to the keeper. Maybe there's a whole new secret weapon come along, silver bullets and all.

8/27/2005 08:49:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home