Improving the Combat Vehicle Crewman’s Body Armor System

Improving the Combat Vehicle Crewman’s Body Armor System by Debi Dawson, PEO Soldier In the small, crowded space of an M1 Abrams tank, current body armor is a tight fit, which is why the Army, with input from Soldiers and Marines who work in armored vehicles, is seeking a better solution. Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier and the U.S. Army Armor Center at Fort Knox, Kentucky, are evaluating the results of a recent combat vehicle crewman’s modular body armor system demonstration in which Soldiers and Marines tested several types of body armor in a variety of drills to see which features worked best and which need improving. The drills included many of the real-world hazards, such as rollovers, casualty evacuations, and mounting and dismounting, that Soldiers experience in theater.

“It was good to merge the materiel development community, Product Manager (PM) Soldier Survivability, the combat development community, and users here at Fort Knox. We were able to put our heads together with the Infantry and Armor Centers, as well as other proponents, and think, ‘What is right? What does ‘right’ look like?’ ” said Lieutenant Colonel Scott Rew, Chief of Mounted Soldier Capabilities in the Armor Center’s Combat Development, Maneuver Requirements Division.

The demonstration was both a proving ground for the current system and a forum for Soldiers and Marines to identify areas that need improvement in next-generation sets.

“The main feedback I heard from participants is that they are really excited the Army is moving forward and looking for solutions that will enhance their ability to operate on the battlefield — any battlefield — and be compatible with their specific platforms,” said Lieutenant Colonel Robert Myles, Product Manager for Soldier Survivability, Project Manager Soldier Equipment. Myles also commented that: “The currently issued body armor has been great for Soldiers wearing it downrange, especially for those doing frequent dismounts, and that of course includes most of the Army. But the armor community has experienced some problems with vehicle crawl space and with conducting day-to-day tasks on various platforms. Soldiers are telling us that the currently issued body armor could be improved on for Soldiers in tight spaces. For gunners on M1 tanks, that means a smaller vest that contains fewer snag hazards and the ability to maneuver around the vehicle.” Private First Class Josh Guevarra, an armored security vehicle (ASV) gunner, assigned to 1st Battalion, 77th Armor, commented that mobility is key: “As the gunner, I need mobility in the arms, mainly if I have to turn around or raise my arms to open the hatch,” said Guevarra. He also noted an improvement in the weight of the armor tested at the demonstration, compared with the body armor he ordinarily uses.

Sergeant Antione Gray, a team leader and ASV commander, commented that the four different vests he tested distributed the weight more evenly over his shoulders, back, and chest, stating, “It’s just more comfortable.” Gray remarked that the quick release, which eliminates the need for Soldiers to reach from side to side to open the straps and remove the vest, was “vital in saving lives and precious seconds.” “I think it’s cool to be able to test the armor,” said Gray, who was quick to appreciate PEO Soldier’s ongoing efforts to balance protection and bulk. He added that, “The challenge is adapting the new armor we’re trying out now with the gear we still use. With some of the new vests, there’s more protection, but they’re bigger. So you have to find new ways to manipulate your body to get through the vehicles.”

Marine Staff Sergeant Christopher Honold, an ASV section leader with the 2d Assault Amphibian Battalion, put it this way: “I just need to be able to move my arms from the left to the right or across, up, and down. If my vehicle goes down and I need to evacuate, I need to be able to get out of there quick.” There will be numerous challenges in developing body armor to fit all tasks on all platforms, but ultimately the Army’s goal is to field a system that will provide better form, fit, and life-saving capability to Soldiers fighting in M1 tanks, M113 armored personnel carriers, and M2/ M3 Bradley fighting vehicles, as well as in other small spaces, such as the heavy expanded mobility tactical truck, or artillery pieces such as the M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzer.

The findings and lessons learned from the demonstration will also be used in developing better, more capable body armor for Army aviators, who have many of the same challenges as the armor community. “Though the optimal design to suit all operational requirements remains to be seen, the focus is, and will continue to be, squarely on saving lives,” said Myles. “In a perfect world, we would have a body armor solution that would work equally well for both dismounted Soldiers and mounted Soldiers,” said Rew. “They could adjust their body armor kit to the requirements they have, whether they’re on or off a platform. And if that’s not possible, if we find that we need a totally separate system, that solution would be integratable with all other requirements we have for body armor.” However, Rew does admit that, “Realistically, if you’re surrounded by a 70-ton platform, I don’t think there’s a whole lot you can do to protect me if a munition pene-52

— January-February 2009 trates that platform, or punches a hole in it. Body armor isn’t really going to do anything for me.” However, body armor becomes critical as soon as a Soldier emerges outside the tank. Clearly, if a guy is on a platform and he has to stick his head out of a hatch, or he’s ‘nametag defilade’ on the turret, he’s going to need protection; something that is light and flexible enough to allow easy exit and entry. The solution for combat vehicle crew members should be one that is tailorable, scalable, and integratable with what we now have. For example, tailorable indicates that mobile gun system (MGS) gunners could configure body armor to suit their needs on that particular weapons platform; scalable indicates that a Soldier could wear no body armor or the full spectrum of protection available with the currently issued body armor; and integratable means that ideally, the crew member’s body armor would be compatible with the currently issued body armor.

“The field is not being shy about what they like and dislike about Soldier equipment,” said Sergeant Major Thomas Coleman, Sergeant Major, PEO Soldier. “We’re taking it to heart, and we continue to move forward with getting improvements out to the field as quickly as possible.”

Based on user input, there are a number of basic requirements that need to be considered for a new mounted body armor system. In addition to providing the same protection as the currently issued body armor and conforming to widely different vehicle spaces, it must:

• Be compatible with all current clothing and equipment for combat vehicle crew members, including the enhanced small-arms protective inserts (ESAPI), and the new XSAPI ballistic inserts.

• Safeguard the Soldier’s abdomen and torso, deltoid, upper shoulder, and arm without impeding the ability to operate a vehicle or perform during drills.

• Be flash and flame-retardant, like the current spall vest, or “chicken suit,” that Soldiers wear beneath the one-piece combat vehicle crewman coverall to protect them from munitions penetration and vehicle explosions.

• Fit Soldiers in sizes ranging from the 5th through the 95th percentile.

• Include a quick-release feature.

• Provide the capability to extract an unconscious Soldier from a vehicle.

The next step in the design-improvement process includes additional demonstrations. Coleman emphasized that, “We learned that clearly we’ve got some things to work on, and we will step out aggressively to work toward a solution to answer these challenges. Like so many other equipment issues in the Army today, we never stop the continual improvement process. We learn by doing and make improvements based on feedback from the field, so that Soldiers on the current battlefield will always have the best.”

For more information visit the PEO Soldier website at: www.peosoldier.army.mil January-February 2009 — 53

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ATTN: ATZK-DAS-A

201 6TH AVE STE 373

FORT KNOX, KY 40121-5721

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300 Periodicals Postage and Fees Paid U.S. Army Armor Center USPS 467-970

PB 17-09-1 Headquarters, Department of the Army Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. PIN: 085169-000