Talk:Interceptor body armor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Interceptor body armor article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

"won't be available until March 2004"... has this information been released, then?

  - Greggae

Since the article mentioned at the bottom of the page was incorrect, I see no reason for it to remain on this page. I am removing it -Ben 172.149.156.178 00:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

somebody please update this article

Contents

[edit] Technical section

This section contains a lot of jargon with no links; articles should probably be made about these technical terms and links given. 129.59.52.135 08:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


"but they offer increased protection from M-80 AP ammunition"

Oh really? Considering M80 AP is 37mm, I AM impressed! Anyone know if it is supposed to be M61 or M2 AP?

The M80 is the AP round for the WWII-era M4 37mm autocannon, yes, but it is also the special "test reference" 7.62x51mm FMJ round (148 grain @ 2780 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) used for body armour tests.

--PhoenixVTam (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh vey!

This needs to be rewritten. It's in the news, people come here to learn about it, and they expect to be able to read it. This is horrible. I don't care if it can't be technically considered Level III-A since the milspec can't write at a level comprehensible to most people. GOD! --Phant 22:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I clarified that a bit. TestPilot 22:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! It's a joy to learn about all sorts of things on my weekly wiki tangents, and I confess it vexes me so when I can't.--Phant 02:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is what many elite ingfantry wear in Iraq

A., Stock Interceptor as given for free by Unle Sam. B., Throw away the original 2 x 4lbs torso panels. C., Buy TAP IV for front (6.2lbs) and Gamma Plus (5.2lbs) for back insert. D., No side hard panels for better mobility. Voila! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.48.242 (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't know where you get this information from. I don't know a single soldier who bought his own plates. And what exactly does "Elite Infantry" mean? Ballistic plates are expensive and cost so much it isn't worth it for any lower enlisted soldier regardless of whether he's infantry, your so called "Elite Infantry", or even a Ranger to go out and buy on their own paycheck. Sounds like a waste of good beer money, especially when the government gives you them for free. I doubt that more than a few people have ever done this since the begining of the war when the Army was slow to issue out IBA's. Ultratone85 12:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a soldier deployed to Iraq and I can assure you no one tampers with their vest because of the fact the military banned, using your own armour downrange! And I know of no one who will take off there side plates because of the fact that is how many soldiers died in OEF/OIF one(round entering the side and bouncing around of the front and back plates ie reason side plates where invented) you my friend are retarded plain and simple and you most likely have no affliation with the military!

Could just be a thing involving different services or units, serving in different ways. Soldiers that spend more of their time in vehicles will tend to want heavier armor for protection: soldiers who do not may discard some plates for reasons of maneuverability or fatigue. Marine, Airborne, or Special Forces machismo may make the decision to trade protection for maneuverability easier. -199.89.180.65 (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad links

This is not a big deal, but some of the links in the introduction/first part of this article have no articles on the other end. Presumably the editor believed this company ( DHB Industries, and their product, Point Blank Industries, had an article on wikipedia, but apperently it does not. So I removed the links --Robin63 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing template

I added the confusing template because "Level III-A", "mil-spec", "OEF" and "OIF III" are talked about as if everyone reading the article knows what they mean. Also, this sentence does not make sense, "Interceptor can not be called a Level III-A vest as the mil-spec does not require protection against heavy .44 Magnum munition, event both Level III-A and Interceptor do protect from much lighter 9 mm threats in an identical tests." Even if "event both" is supposed to be "even though both", it still does not make sense to say it like that. The correct thing to say would be something like, "Unlike Level III-A body armor, Interceptor body armor is not required by the mil-spec to protect against .44 Magnum munition." -- Kjkolb 17:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article rewrite

This article has several instances of vandalism and many areas where the text is vague or confusing. A complete rewrite of the article would likely fix the problems. Anybody else for a rewrite of this article? wingman358 19:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not confusing at all.

Just edited for the only offending jargon that I saw (level IIIA and mil-spec), providing links to other articles in wikipedia. As a random person with no military experience or even interest in such things (I just came across this article by chance), I didn't find it confusing at all, so I took out the "confusing" header. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.108.249.100 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

It is better than before, but there are still undefined terms, such as OEF, GR, V-50 and IED (improvised explosive device). In addition, terms should usually not appear in acronym form the first time they are used. This happens several times in this article, like AP, ACU and FMJ. They should be expanded and the acronyms should appear in parentheses behind them. -- Kjkolb 16:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] only IBA

I cleared the remarks about SOV testing. There is a link to the Dragon Skin article.

217.230.47.5 08:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] copy&pasted

The section of the article about the Improved Outer Tactical Vest appears to have been copied and pasted from http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/04/02/2497-army-to-field-improved-body-armor/.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.97.175 (talk • contribs)

Works by Army employees published on government websites as part of their duties are public domain, so a copy/paste from there isn't the end of the world. Original content is, of course, preferable, but this is okay for now. Kafziel Talk 14:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not so much that it's copied and pasted but that it reads like a press release. It's terrible, not to mention unencyclopedic.

Fixed. I wrote my own article on the IOTV and removed the section. If anyone has better information on the phase-out date of the IBA, it'd be greatly appreciated if they'd put it in the replacement section. Bob the Cannibal 15:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have a question

Where can I purchase some Interceptor body armor for troops in Iraq/Afghanistan? I know the question is sort of irrelevant for wikipedia, but I really want the answer. Noahdabomb3 23:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

At present time because of US Military Policy there shouldn't be a single US soldier, Marine, Sailor, or Airman in Iraq without an IBA. If you know one tell them to call the Inspector General and report their unit, because it is their right to have an IBA.Ultratone85 05:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't waste your time. There are better armor choices out there. Alot better for both protecting the body from both small and large rounds as well as KE.