Enhancements to Body Armor Load Management and Injury Reduction

8/9/2019 Enhancements to Body Armor Load Management and Injury Reduction

1/11

1 www.techappsgroup.org | [email protected]

White Paper - Enhancements to Body Armor Load Management and Injury Reduction

Introduction

Many people read this article, from the Washington Post, on Feb 1, 2009. It discussed how the

weight of combat gear has seriously hindered warfighters effectiveness and caused long-terminjury.

Carrying heavy combat loads is taking a quiet but serious toll on troops deployedto Iraq and Afghanistan, contributing to injuries that are sidelining them in growing numbers,according to senior military and defense officials.

Rising concern over the muscle and bone injuries -- as well as the hindrance caused by thecumbersome gear as troops maneuver in Afghanistan's mountains -- prompted Army andMarine Corps leaders and commanders to launch initiatives last month that will introducelighter equipment for some U.S. troops.

It seems that as technology increases, warrior loads are also increasing, not becoming lighter, ascommanders want their soldiers to carry more electronics, the required batteries, and peripherals,to increase situational awareness and (in theory) improve mission effectiveness and increasesurvivability.

However, as clothing systems become lighter and stronger as body armor becomes lighter andstronger as electronics become smaller andlighter why is the load getting heavier?

The military has added to its protective gear in recent years to guard against improvised

bombs and other threats common in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that has come with a trade-off, as soldiers and Marines routinely carry more than half their body weight into combat.

Individual Marine combat loads -- including protective gear, weapons, ammunition, water,food and communications gear -- range from 97 to 135 pounds, well over the recommended50 pounds, a 2007 Navy study found.

In Afghanistan, soldiers routinely carry loads of 130 to 150 pounds for three-day missions,said Jim Stone, acting director of the soldier requirements division at the Army InfantryCenter at Fort Benning, Ga. In Iraq, where patrols are more likely to use vehicles, loadsrange from 60 to nearly 100 pounds, he said.

From discussions with many people, as well as my own experience, long-term extreme loadcarriage does take a toll on a warfighters health.

As injuries force more soldiers to stay home, the Army is having a harder time filling unitsfor upcoming deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq, said Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, theservice's vice chief of staff.

"There is no doubt that [in] our non-deployable rates, we're seeing increase," he said. "Idon't want to see it grow anymore."

The number of total non-deployables has risen by an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 since 2006,putting the current figure at about 20,000, according to Chiarelli. "That occurs when you runthe force at the level we're running it now," he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013101717_pf.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013101717_pf.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013101717_pf.html


2/11


"You can't hump a rucksack at 8,000 to 11,000 feet for 15 months, even at a young age,and not have that have an impact on your body, and we are seeing an increase inmuscular-skeletal issues," Chiarelli told reporters last month.

Evolution of Load-Bearing Tactical Gear

While there have been relatively significant improvements in military load-bearing equipment overthe years, much like the battery or combustion engine, the improvements have not beensubstantial, have dealt primarily with new materials, and were adjustments to previous designs -more evolution on previous equipment rather than fundamental core changes. At the end of theday, a warfighter carries his/her gear much the same way they did in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam-the H or Y harness over the shoulder.

According to the blog Strike-Hold!

The M1956 system was the first major improvement in load-bearing equipment since WWIIand continued the approach of previous equipment gear of incorporating a canvas pistolbelt and H-type suspenders. It differed from previous set-ups, however, by relying on asingle type of belt for soldiers armed with all weapons based on the WWII pistol beltdesign. It also introduced slide clip fasteners to attach the equipment pouches to the beltthese clips would later also be used on the ALICE system. Holding equipment close to thebelt reduced the bouncing effect of the M1910 wire-hangar attached equipment and allowedpouches to be mounted in places where there were no eyelets (such as the suspenders).

The M1956 Load-Bearing Equipment was originally adopted for use exclusively by theUnited States Army; however, during the Vietnam War it came into use across all the US

Armed Forces. The system then remained in general issue and service until being replacedby the All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment (ALICE) in 1974. Butalthough the ALICE system was supposed to replace all of the M56 gear, some pieces ofM56 gear would still be found in use as late as the early 1990s. The parts of the M56 set-up that were especially favored were the Field Pack (or Butt Pack), as there was noALICE replacement, and the H-shaped suspenders which are more comfortable and stablethan the ALICE version.

The primary shortfall of the M56 system was that its made of cotton canvas material which makes it less durable, more water and odor absorbent, and heavier than nylonequipment. Also, because if its propensity for absorbing moisture and mildew, the webbing

was found to be susceptible to jungle rot and having your web gear fall apart on you out inthe boonies is not something you want to risk.

The other big weakness of both the M56 and ALICE systems was the slide-clip fastenersused to secure pouches to the pistol belt. Although these were certainly better than theM1910 wire-hangars, they had the unfortunate habit of sometimes coming undone in use,which meant losing a pouch and/or needing to frequently refasten them. They could alsobecome very uncomfortable over prolonged periods of use even causing abrasionwounds. For these reasons, a trick we learned from the old -timers was to replace theclips with lengths of 550-cord and 100-mile-an-hour tape.

Despite the short-comings inherent in the materials used in its construction and theclunkiness of some of the clips used the M56 pattern webgear possessed a muchsuperior suspender/shoulder harness design (commonly referred to as an H-harness)


3/11


than its ALICE replacement, and this made it a much sought after alternative will in to the1980s.

It is also interesting to note that the first product Blackhawk introduced back in 198x was amodernized and enhanced version of the M56 because serviceable original examples

were getting very few and far between.

Even as recent as the early 2000s, I knew many within the SOF community that preferred to goon patrols using a modified H harness and web belt even if the situation called for body armor-granted these had newer fabrics and improved padding than their Vietnam-era forefathers- butthey were basically the same design. Whether you are talking about a rack, tactical vest, or mostother configurations, its still basically the same as it was 60 years ago.

Figure 1 - The M1956 Load-Bearing Equipment

BALCS and MOLLE have made configuration and modularity possible, but moving pouches, whileconvenient, does not necessarily affect weight management. If anything, it probably makes itworse, as the front of the system is typically much heavier than the back- the distribution is at thefront, not around the waist, forcing the wearer to compensate for balance and comfort. Thiscompensation causes sustained injury over time.


4/11


Figure 2 - Multiple pouches are worn on the front of the vest

Body armor is no exception. The flak jacket was just that, a jacket. Up until 2005, soldiers in Iraqand Afghanistan were wearing the IBA (Interceptor), which was also a jacket-style configuration.Level IV plates, adding as much as 25 pounds in weight, created a situation where you went intocombat essentially wearing a lead x-ray robe. It was uncomfortable, awkward, and hard tomaneuver in. There is no doubt the IBA saved lives and used improved materials, but its basicdesign was not much different from a flak jacket. Figure 3 depicts the Vietnam-era flak jacket

versus the IBA. The basic design similarities are striking.

With the addition of MOLLE webbing, soldiers could attach ammo and other pouches, adding evenmore weight to a piece of gear that rode squarely on the neck and shoulders. Add to it an assaultpack, radio, electronics, and other gear, all of this was causing immediate pain, and long-termdamage, to the user.

Figure 3 - Vietnam-era Flak Jacket vs. Interceptor IBA

Tactical equipment manufacturers began making retrofit kits for body armor to help alleviate thesymptoms of armor fatigue and design flaws. While no doubt effective in the short term, thesewere band-aids for a deeper problem.


5/11


Figure 4 depicts the IBA buckle retrofit kit from Tactical Tailor. The IBA had a Velcro closure onthe front, which became inoperable when exposed to sand and dust. In addition, because of thedesign of the Velcro flap, it would not stay closed, preventing the IBA from staying properlyconnected.

Figure 4 - Tactical Tailor IBA Buckle Retrofit Kit

Even as the military moved away from the jacket-style body armor and adopted over-the-shoulder clamshell designs, like the RBAV (Figure 5), the problems remained - weight anddiscomfort on the wearer. Warfighters using body armor realized quickly that if they could tightenthe system, the weight would be feel better because it was distributed off the neck andshoulders. While a possible solution for short periods of time, this didnt work with extremelyheavy loads, and some systems issued by the military didnt have the ability to be tightened.Moreover, many users in Iraq and Afghanistan actually loosened their body armor system, asopposed to tighten it, to increase airflow (or at least try to) in extreme heat.

Figure 5 RBAV-07 (courtesy militaryphotos.net)

For well over a decade, the military has been looking to the commercial outdoor industry forinspiration and innovation that can be adapted or modified for the battlefield. One thing theoutdoor industry has done well is help backpackers and mountaineers manage their load. Militaryindustry and the military itself began looking into ways to leverage those commercial load-management techniques to help the warfighter.

Note: This article addresses the design of body armor carriers and weight management only and

the writer clearly understands the technological improvements made in armor technology.


6/11


Enter Archangel Armor

Ive written a few things about Archangel Armor over the last year, mainly because as a formersoldier, I think they simply have the best armor system on the market- it distributes weight evenly,removing the strain from the neck and soldiers, while supporting the spine. My own injuries mirror

those of thousands of soldiers and I was admittedly skeptical of their claims at first, but afterputting it on, I was impressed. In fact, I can safely say that it is the most comfortable system Ihave ever donned.

With that said, Archangel has, without a doubt, the first game-changing advancement in bodyarmor since the 1960s. And when you really think about it, what they have done is not rocketscience. It makes perfect sense and Im actually surprised no one had come up with it sooner.

So what is so game-changing?

The basic concept of Archangels system is to remove the weight of the soliders load from theback, neck and shoulders, and redistribute it to the stronger load-bearing platform of the hips andlegs. To do this, Archangel has developed an armor carrier (as well as retrofit kit) which leveragesan internal frame suspension system, much like a high-end commercial mountaineering backpackFigure 6).

The easiest way to mitigate and interfere with acute and chronic injury patterns, as they relate tothe soldiers use of body armor, is to remove as much spinal load-bearing pressure as possibleand add spinal support. Archangels Internal Frame Load Bearing Armor (IFLBA) is designed todisperse weight carriage to the waist and legs as well support and protect the spine. Manysoldiers, myself included, have permanent back pain, much of it attributed to the weight associated

with prolonged use of body armor.

The IFLBA can also accept an assault pack, allowing the wearer to leverage the armors internalsuspension system, rather than the packs shoulder straps. This is an additional feature, whichenhances load carriage. Additionally, by not needing to utilize the packs shoulder straps, thestraps are not in the way, pulling on the armor, nor are there pieces of material in the way ofweapon use (Figure 7).

Figure 6 - Archangel Armor IFLBA, Suspension View


7/11


Figure 7 - IFLBA Side View with attached assault pack

Independent Lab Study

During a series of tests and evaluations conducted at the NC State University, Ergonomics Centerat Raleigh, NC, this graphic was produced to provide an objective measure of how the weight isremoved from the back, neck, and shoulders. On the left is an Improved Outer tactical Vest (withsoft armor and full plates), the right depicts an IOTV - IFLBA retrofit. In addition to the armor load,the Soldier also carried a rifle and pack with 30 pounds. As you can see from the graphic, the useof the IFLBA retrofit resulted in over 80% of the load being removed from the shoulders.

Figure 8 - NCSU Ergonomics Lab Study, IOTV vs. IOTV with IFLBA Retrofit

According to the Jan 2010 study conducted by Dr Richard Kuhns, When unencumbered, the bodyis used for upright posturing, and the lower extremities are used for locomotion. When under load,the body must compensate for balance, starting and stopping, and more muscles are recruited for

these tasks. This increases the amount of work placed on them constantly. The increased demandon these muscles makes them tire faster, and prevent recuperation, i.e. fatigue. When carryingloads that increase spinal load bearing you can either remain upright and compress the spine itself


8/11


or bend the upper body to take the pressure off the spine and use the lumbosacral muscles andwaist as a fulcrum, especially when running, jogging, carrying something with the hands, as thisonly further compresses the spine and creates more discomfort. The decision to adjust bodyposture to minimize spinal impact is a self-preservation reaction that people will instinctively dueas pain or pressure builds in bony structures. The resulting fatigue is due to the fact that the lower

extremities are now tasked with using mostly the leg muscles to balance and carry the weight thatis not evenly balanced over the core of the spine in a non-spinal bearing fashion. If the weight isbalanced over the core structure on a non-spinal load bearing and spinal supporting method, thenthe person does not need to bend in any unusual manners to compensate for an unnatural fulcrumcreated out of discomfort or fear of injury.

Figure 9 - Testing conducted at NCSU

Dr Kuhns further stated, The Archangel IFLBA re-directs the load bearing to a stronger, more

secure area of the body, which will reduce injuries to the spine and its supporting structures. Itallows greater range of motion in the head/neck/shoulder are regardless of loads carried. Thenominal changes in total measured weight are negligible especially in light of the idea that theArchangel IFLBA creates less fatigue, which equates to greater levels of job performance anddecrease injury occurrence. The Archangel IFLBA also provides ergonomic support for the spine.The added benefit of this will be evident with prolonged periods of standing, sitting, walking,running, laying prone, and laying supine.

Evaluations

Archangels system was also evaluated by a chiropractor, who stated that the IFLBA:

Supports proper curvature of the spine, while standing or sitting.

Does not interfere with normal range of motion, or engagement of spinal groups.

Re-establishes center of gravity in the spine, which makes it easier to kneel and stand.

Superior Range of motion in shoulders, upper back and neck.

Alleviates load bearing and resistance to shoulders, upper back, neck, decreasing fatigue inthose areas.

This device can increase tactical effectiveness, along with range of motion under gravity.

This device can decrease fatigue.

This device can decrease acute and chronic spinal injuries.

The easiest way to mitigate and interfere with acute and chronic injury patterns, as theyrelate to the soldiers and the use of the currently used IOTV and MBAV, is to remove asmuch spinal load bearing as possible and add spinal support.


9/11


Changing the load bearing dynamics of the current fielded IOTV and MBAV to somethingthat has little or no negative effects on the spine and its supporting structure us an idealway to decrease fatigue and injury, and will thereby increase performance, endurance andtactical readiness. The Archangel IFLBA does this easily.

In my opinion, the Archangel Armor IFLBA more than satisfies the goal of removing spinal

loading while providing adequate support to the spine to increase endurance and reduceinjury.

The Archangel IFLBA re-directs the load bearing to a stronger, more secure area of thebody, which will reduce injuries to the spine and its supporting structures. It allows greaterrange of motion in the head/neck/shoulder are regardless of loads carried. The nominalchanges in total measured weight are negligible especially in light of the idea that theArchangel IFLBA creates less fatigue which equates to greater levels of job performanceand decrease injury occurrence. The Archangel IFLBA also provides ergonomic support forthe spine. The added benefit of this will be evident with prolonged periods of standing,sitting, walking, running, laying prone, and laying supine.

This is an advantage to our soldiers that should be in place in all branches for the reason ofsafety, protection and tactical readiness. Less fatigue means a soldier can go further andfaster in a much more profound way. The tactical advantage will be evident to all who usethis system.

An SF NCO submitted an After Action Review (AAR) following his use of the IFLBA:

The main advantage of the equipment was that it provided an improved platform to carrythe required ballistic protection equipment, while providing spinal support and correctalignment that is nonexistent with current body armor carriers.

Another advantage was the units ability to accept carious types of MOLLE accessories with

its adaptable mounting system. The added weight of the unit is not a factor, the ability to provide the ballistic protection

required while reducing fatigue and potential back injury, was far more advantageous thansaving a few ounces on weight.

The frame was easily adjustable, which quickly provides a custom fit to the user, withouttools or additional equipment.

This product will save a lot of operators from developing back problems that are caused byloads that are placed on the body by the current equipment.

The system is a manageable weight. Although the system is heavier than my RBAV, it feelsmuch lighter when worn because the weight is distributed better. The inner frame holds theweight in place, preventing the system from slumping or moving up and down or side toside.

Once the system has been fitted to the user, it remains tight and in place while alsoallowing for flexibility. The straps and connectors did not slip or loosen during the trail. Withthe flexible cummerbund, the system stays tight without limiting the soldiers breathing,movement or flexibility.

The Archangel System offers many advantages over the current system while still beingcompatible with them. In addition, the system offers much needed back support with anincreased weight carrying ability, all while providing the necessary ballistic protection.


10/11


IFLBA Retrofit

While Archangel Armor has their own armor carrier, which offers much greater capability thancurrently fielded systems, what is most important to note is that their retrofit kit can be installed onmost issued armor carriers already in use.

This means that the core benefits of Archangels system can be achieved without the costsassociated with new armor procurement. Much has been discussed about the militarys recentbody armor contracts- hundreds-of-thousands of systems over several years. Withoutjeopardizing or conflicting with those existing contracts, an IFLBA retrofit kit can easily be installedby the user.

Competitive Systems

In the last several months, other firms have released internal frame armor systems, whichleverage aluminum stays to accomplish better weight distribution. While no doubt these systemsare well built, they are designed for dismounted operations exclusivelyand cannot be leveragedwhile in a vehicle. This can create a problem when method of transportation is not known inadvance. Often, warfighters spend time on foot patrol, in vehicles, or on helicopters. Possessingan armor system that is only good while in foot is not practical and can be costly. The IFLBAspatented design allows it to be used while mounted or dismounted.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that technology and innovation has finally caught-up to military requirementwhen it comes to body armor. Current operational tempo, multiple deployment cycles, and

extended, sustained, required use of body armor has caused serious, long-term injury to tens-of-thousands of soldiers.

Archangel Armors Internal Frame Load Bearing Armor (IFLBA) is the first true advancement andadaptation of commercial innovation to protect the warfighter while wearing body armor.

Archangels IFLBA reduces fatigue by removing the weight burden off the neck and shoulders,distributing it to the waist and legs, while providing increases spinal protection. The IFLBA allowsto warfighter to carry more, without feeling as though their load has increased. Throughindependent tests and evaluations, the IFLBA has been shown to prevent long-term injury andincrease comfort, while providing enhanced range-of-motion during mounted and dismounted

operations. In fact, it is the only internal frame armor system on the market designed for bothmounted and dismounted use.

Archangels IFLBA can be leveraged on most currently fielded armor systems, removing the needto recomplete existing body armor contracts or the staggering costs associated with new armoracquisition.

The U.S. military should proactively evaluate Archangel Armors IFLBA and retrofit kits asimmediate solutions to stated capability gaps.


11/11


For More Information

Archangel Armor LLC,www.archangelarmor.net,[email protected].

References

The Washington Post, Weight of Combat Gear Is Taking Toll, 02/01/09, Ann Scott Tyson,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013101717_pf.html

Archangel Armor LLC,www.archangelarmor.net

Strike - Hold!, "U.S. Army M1956 Load Carrying Equipment (LCE)," 07 July 2010,http://strikehold.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/u-s-army-m1956-load-carrying-equipment-lce/

Technical Applications Group LLC is a ServiceDisabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)
http://www.archangelarmor.net/http://www.archangelarmor.net/http://www.archangelarmor.net/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013101717_pf.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013101717_pf.htmlhttp://www.archangelarmor.net/http://www.archangelarmor.net/http://www.archangelarmor.net/http://strikehold.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/u-s-army-m1956-load-carrying-equipment-lce/http://strikehold.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/u-s-army-m1956-load-carrying-equipment-lce/http://strikehold.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/u-s-army-m1956-load-carrying-equipment-lce/http://www.archangelarmor.net/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013101717_pf.htmlmailto:[email protected]://www.archangelarmor.net/

Enhancements to Body Armor Load Management and Injury Reduction

Documents

Transcript of Enhancements to Body Armor Load Management and Injury Reduction