Marines Give Modular Tactical Vest (MTV) Thumbs Down

[SWJED]

Marines Give Modular Tactical Vest (MTV) Thumbs Down.

FOX News is reporting that Marine Commandant General James Conway is heeding his combat Marines' advice by ordering a halt to the rest of an unfilled order of Protective Products International's Modular Tactical Vest (MTV).

The Pentagon and Marine Corps authorized the purchase of 84,000 bulletproof vests in 2006 that not only are too heavy but are so impractical that some U.S. Marines are asking for their old vests back so they can remain agile enough to fight.

Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway wants to know who authorized the costly purchase of the nearly 30-pound flak jackets...

[Cavguy]

I understand where the Marines are coming from. In Tal Afar, I didn't wear side SAPI, though encouraged. (later was mandatory). Too much bulk for the protection, and I felt comfortable enough to decide my risk. If all I did was ride in HMMWV's all day, I might have reconsidered, but walking patrols in all that armor is exhausting.

There comes a point where clear heads need to assess the intersection between prudent protection and hindrance to effective combat action. I've seen guys saved by their IBA after being shot in the vest - I'm definately not against it. But there is only so much one can take and have effective dismounted ability.

Travis Patriquin captured my sentiment well in the "How to win Al Anbar" powerpoint. You can be safe in the gear, but can't chase insurgents well. Even with good PT, a few hundred yards is all you can really run in the summer before overheating.

I also failed to understand why the USA and USMC couldn't agree on the "next gen" vest. <sigh>

[Xenophon]

Both the USMC and USA vest are ridiculously over-sized. I'm been humping the MTV in country for three months now and I hate the thing. Like cavguy said, it's good for convoy work because of the extra protection, but I can barely move in it on a foot patrol. The answer is give plate carriers to those who dismount a lot and vests to those who do not. Guys like me, on a MTT team where I do both, may need both. What I wouldn't give to be able to wear a plate carrier on a patrol.

[Boot]

and have worn both. While the MTV is heavier it wore better than the OTV;
As CAVGUY stated, I don't understand why the services can't come up with something better. The side SAPI's were a pain, and once you hung all your extra gear off either, you felt like you would fall over. SF doesn't seem to have a problem getting the type of gear they need why do more conventional units? It seems that wrt equipment conventional units come around years later, of course not all gear used by SF types is needed by conventional units.
One thing I did like about the MTV was the quick release ability, hit a couple of snaps on the shoulders, and you could drop it. Pull the draw string and it would drop the plates. I did notice slight differences in my model and newer models.
At some point a balance needs to be found between armor and mobility

[Xenophon]

Agreed. I like the design. It FEELS better than the old one, it's just too damn heavy. Get rid of all the kevlar and use the same design just as a plate/gear carrier and I'd like it.

[tequila]

As someone who just got issued an MTV, I have to agree with all the other Marines here. Too heavy, absolutely, but wears much better than the OTV. The side SAPIs on the OTV felt like wearing wings.

[J Wolfsberger]

The problem comes from an incomplete understanding of survivability. They aren't taking into account that agility also contributes.

[Ken White]

The problem comes from an incomplete understanding of survivability. They aren't taking into account that agility also contributes.

protective vests other than the 16 pound flak vest that was mandatory for all in contact in the 1 Mar Div in 1952. Having been there earlier when there were none, thankfully and having been in Viet Nam later where almost no one in the Army (other than the supply convoy drivers and gunners) wore one (again thankfully), I'm far more inclined to put faith in tactical sense and agility than in armor which will never be able to approach good protection much less provide total protection.

Different time, different wars I realize but my sensing is that there's a tactical cost to a 30-plus pound vest and that our risk aversion factor has been and is detrimental to infantry operations. YMMV.

[VMI_Marine]

Agreed. I like the design. It FEELS better than the old one, it's just too damn heavy. Get rid of all the kevlar and use the same design just as a plate/gear carrier and I'd like it.

I participated in a MARCORSYSCOM survey about two weeks ago regarding the MTV. According to SYSCOM, BLT 1/6 and 2/7 have been fielded a plate carrier that is very similar in design to the MTV (I believe it is pretty much the same as PPI's Hornet). The plate pockets have soft armor backing for the plates (a requirement, for those who are not familiar with the difference between "in conjunction" and "stand alone" plates). The cummerbund design is identical to the MTV. Currently SYSCOM is considering issuing GCE units the MTV and the plate carrier.

A PPI rep brought along a vest they have designed that is a plate carrier with removable soft armor panels. With the soft armor panels, the coverage is equivalent to IBA; with them removed it is equivalent to the Hornet shown above. I like the concept, but am not crazy about the attachment system - it requires threading a wire through loops on the plate carrier and armor panels.

The reason I like the concept is because I picture using different levels of body armor for different phases of an operation. For instance, an infantry company doing a movement to contact would wear the plate carrier in order to have protection from small arms fire, but also the additional mobility and breathability for dismounted movement, and in case of chance contact or a meeting engagement where they need to maneuver aggressively. Once the unit reaches its assault position, the Marines (or Soldiers) don their soft armor in order to have the additional frag protection for the assault.

The survey group was interesting - I was the only infantryman in the room, the rest of the group were MPs, tankers, or amtrackers. I was the only voice in the room that wanted to reduce coverage in favor of mobility, and/or have a modular armor system that incorporated removable soft armor. Personally, I think we passed the good idea cutoff point when we added side SAPIs, but the casualty averse mentality has eliminated any chance of getting rid of those things.

[Fuchs]

Is any body armour equipment known that offers 100% coverage against fragments when lying down?

I'd rate fragments protection (like the old thin kevlar vests) for the arms and legs higher than hard rifle-proof torso side plates in many conflict types.


Sorry for playing the HIC guy again, I can't resist it.