Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Body Armour Shirts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Body Armour Shirts

    Does the Irish army actually need them shirts that you wear under body armour, it seams that there becoming a issued thing in a few army's now. Or would they not be used that often as there made for being worn under body armour and would not get much use and wouldn't constitute issuing them to all pdf members.

    Similar to the ones as follows,

    http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/99911.../0/UBACS02.jpg

    http://images.quickblogcast.com/102435-95277/ACS.png
    Attached Files
    59
    Yes, they should go on general issue
    47.46%
    28
    Yes, but only to certain members of the DF who wear body armour regularly
    45.76%
    27
    No, there is no need for them, just use the same old shirt
    6.78%
    4
    Last edited by paul; 22 December 2008, 00:24.
    Don't stand there GAWPING, like you've never seen the hand of God BEFORE!!

  • #2
    Originally posted by paul View Post
    Does the Irish army actually need them shirts that you wear under body armour, it seams that there becoming a issued thing in a few army's now. Or would they not be used that often as there mad for being worn under body armour and would not get much use and wouldn't constitute issuing them to all pdf members.

    Similar to the ones as follows,

    http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/99911.../0/UBACS02.jpg

    http://images.quickblogcast.com/102435-95277/ACS.png
    I have one of them from my tour in the Stan. Good for rangework the arms are padded very comfortable for the "prone position down"

    Comment


    • #3
      A lot depends on the weather. A good idea for TChad ot other hot places. Then again, might not be a bad idea seeing as you can't get at the pockets on the smock any more.

      BTW, in relation to the survey, I ASSUME RDF are getting Body armour as a matter of course seeing as the PDF just discarded thousands of sets of old, but still good, body armour & PLCE.

      Peronsally having worn it, having body armour inside the smock can be a nightmare if you are trying to get at it (common first time user mistake - put on the body armour nice and tight only to find your chest cannot expand when you start breathing heavily ....and can't stop to adjust it).

      The UBACS could be a nice idea.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Docman View Post
        BTW, in relation to the survey, I ASSUME RDF are getting Body armour as a matter of course seeing as the PDF just discarded thousands of sets of old, but still good, body armour & PLCE.

        Peronsally having worn it, having body armour inside the smock can be a nightmare if you are trying to get at it (common first time user mistake - put on the body armour nice and tight only to find your chest cannot expand when you start breathing heavily ....and can't stop to adjust it).

        The UBACS could be a nice idea.
        Well I've certainly had the displeasure of having to wear it!
        Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
        Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
        Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
        Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by johnny no stars View Post
          Well I've certainly had the displeasure of having to wear it!
          lucky old barry
          Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
          Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
          The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere***
          The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
          The best lack all conviction, while the worst
          Are full of passionate intensity.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Docman View Post
            Then again, might not be a bad idea seeing as you can't get at the pockets on the smock any more.


            The UBACS could be a nice idea.

            Isn't the new body armour meant to be warn under the smock? I was under the illusion that it was written down on something, don't know what its called, that its to be warn under the smock but me units have not put into practice yet.

            Is the UBACS what the yanks have now or have i mixed it up with something else, cause i read earlier on today that they hate it, too heavy, lack of movement, bulky and some are actually asking for there old vests back.
            Don't stand there GAWPING, like you've never seen the hand of God BEFORE!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Shirts

              All the lads who go overseas with Uncle Sam get an issue of those shirts. By all accounts they are popular and well received. They are made of some sort of wicking and flame retardant material (Kevlar or Nomex, similar to flight suits) to help reduce burns from IED explosions and vehicle fires. I'd say it would be a good fit for the Irish who deploy overseas. At this point, body armour is essentially standard kit for any army now and this supports it's wear and use.

              A

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by irishrgr View Post
                All the lads who go overseas with Uncle Sam get an issue of those shirts. By all accounts they are popular and well received. They are made of some sort of wicking and flame retardant material (Kevlar or Nomex, similar to flight suits) to help reduce burns from IED explosions and vehicle fires. I'd say it would be a good fit for the Irish who deploy overseas. At this point, body armour is essentially standard kit for any army now and this supports it's wear and use.

                A

                I didn't make my point clear, my bad, after seeing countless vids and pictures of the irish in chad there wearing shirts with no body armour, then when they wear there body armour they have the same shirts on, this is the same in most places the DF goes. they can't be going around wearing a green shirt with dpm sleeves like in them pictures over there just in case they had to put there vests on. This is why i said is it worth while putting them on general issue.
                Don't stand there GAWPING, like you've never seen the hand of God BEFORE!!

                Comment


                • #9


                  We get these issued on going to the Stan ,it is worn under the body armour. Smock is not worn due to the increased temperature.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rod and serpent View Post


                    We get these issued on going to the Stan ,it is worn under the body armour. Smock is not worn due to the increased temperature.
                    Yes but you can't really go on a patrol with that one and no body armour, as its back in the mowag. This is my point, is there any point really of it going on general issue when the DF ususlly do that?
                    Don't stand there GAWPING, like you've never seen the hand of God BEFORE!!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by paul View Post
                      Isn't the new body armour meant to be warn under the smock? I was under the illusion that it was written down on something, don't know what its called, that its to be warn under the smock but me units have not put into practice yet.

                      Is the UBACS what the yanks have now or have i mixed it up with something else, cause i read earlier on today that they hate it, too heavy, lack of movement, bulky and some are actually asking for there old vests back.
                      UBACS - Under Body Armour Combat Shirt - The british version.


                      The US Version is called ACS


                      As for The Irish Body Armour being worn under the smock - the new version doesn't seem to be. I have seen an instruction about it somewhere but can't remember what it said but have seen it worn outside the smock. It is IP-DPM so there shouldn't be a problem.

                      Originally posted by paul View Post
                      Yes but you can't really go on a patrol with that one and no body armour, as its back in the mowag. This is my point, is there any point really of it going on general issue when the DF ususlly do that?
                      But wouldn't they be wearing the Battle Vest at least therefore hiding the non DPM part of the uniform?
                      Last edited by Docman; 22 December 2008, 01:52.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by paul View Post
                        I didn't make my point clear, my bad, after seeing countless vids and pictures of the irish in chad there wearing shirts with no body armour, then when they wear there body armour they have the same shirts on, this is the same in most places the DF goes. they can't be going around wearing a green shirt with dpm sleeves like in them pictures over there just in case they had to put there vests on. This is why i said is it worth while putting them on general issue.
                        If only there were some form of vest issued in DPM, which would cover said areas, and you could use it to carry your stuff too.....

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Barry View Post
                          If only there were some form of vest issued in DPM, which would cover said areas, and you could use it to carry your stuff too.....
                          There was no need for the sarcasm now barry
                          hurt my feelings
                          Don't stand there GAWPING, like you've never seen the hand of God BEFORE!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            They were at the very least being looked at as an option for the lads going to Chad after the Wing used them over there.

                            Nothing seems to have come of it though.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              There is a Training Instruction out relating to the IPLCE and it staes that Body Armour is to be worn under the smock. An irish DPM UBACS was trialled in Chad but haven't heard if its going to be adopted or not. Its made by Lowe Alpine.
                              Death before Dishonour.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X