Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

Well this totally didn't turn into a stupid rant about historical accuracy, rather than looking at the economics of why this is happening.

Thank you.

That said, I'm still reasonably confident that 15% is a large enough chunk to merit spending the dosh to ensure that they can actually serve properly, so I disagree with the rest of your post. This is a military that spends hundreds of millions on individual planes. A military that gets 58% of the United State's discretionary spending (or ~20% of its total). You're seriously telling me that effective body armor for an extra body type is what's going to break the camel's back, here? When it enables over 100,000 extra troops to serve with significantly greater efficiency?

[Loud Whispers]

I wonder how hard tailoring body armour would be. >___>

I reckon the difficulty's not in the actual tailoring, since the private sector seems to manage that at a moderate cost with little difference between male and female armour. Now, making armour that could be mass produced to fit most women, that would be where I reckon they have to think.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That said, I'm still reasonably confident that 15% is a large enough chunk to merit spending the dosh to ensure that they can actually serve properly, so I disagree with the rest of your post. This is a military that spends hundreds of millions on individual planes. A military that gets 58% of the United State's discretionary spending (or ~20% of its total). You're seriously telling me that effective body armor for an extra body type is what's going to break the camel's back, here? When it enables over 100,000 extra troops to serve with significantly greater efficiency?

The US armed forces of course have plenty of money to throw around, so there is no longer an issue of equipment either.

[Max White]

That said, I'm still reasonably confident that 15% is a large enough chunk to merit spending the dosh to ensure that they can actually serve properly, so I disagree with the rest of your post. This is a military that spends hundreds of millions on individual planes. A military that gets 58% of the United State's discretionary spending (or ~20% of its total). You're seriously telling me that effective body armor for an extra body type is what's going to break the camel's back, here? When it enables over 100,000 extra troops to serve with significantly greater efficiency?

You are assuming those 15% all require the exact same fit, almost impossible. It is, however, possible that making fits for those 15% may very well require more variants than the remaining 85% combined.
It isn't just "Female Armor", because that wouldn't fit everybody. It is "Female Armor 1" + "Female Armor 2" + "Female Armor 3"... You get the idea.

[Bauglir]

@Loud Whispers

Ah, thank you. I don't know how I missed that. I'm... I'm just gonna let that post serve as my reply to Max White.

[Descan]

I wonder how hard tailoring body armour would be. >___>

I reckon the difficulty's not in the actual tailoring, since the private sector seems to manage that at a moderate cost with little difference between male and female armour. Now, making armour that could be mass produced to fit most women, that would be where I reckon they have to think.

I'm thinking more like have two basic body types, one for the more feminine style and one for the more masculine style. And for soldiers that diverge wildly enough that it impacts their performance, tailor it so they can be more effective.

[Vector]

It isn't just "Female Armor", because that wouldn't fit everybody. It is "Female Armor 1" + "Female Armor 2" + "Female Armor 3"... You get the idea.

How is this different than for men, again?  Convince me.

[scrdest]

It isn't just "Female Armor", because that wouldn't fit everybody. It is "Female Armor 1" + "Female Armor 2" + "Female Armor 3"... You get the idea.

How is this different than for men, again?  Convince me.

It isn't. Except making an armor type for each 28% of army is more justifiable economically than making one for 5%.

[Leafsnail]

The US armed forces of course have plenty of money to throw around, so there is no longer an issue of equipment either.

So in other words "tailoring" (insofar as making something roughly the right shape constitutes tailoring) body armour to women was judged to be worthwhile.  Doesn't this mean your argument about female body armour being insanely exotic and expensive is wrong?  The source in the Cracked argument correctly identified an issue that is now being fixed, and there's no need to try and defend the old status quo.

[Max White]

How is this different than for men, again?  Convince me.

Male armor 1 fits 30% of people, Female armor 1 fits 3% of people. I'm getting more bang for my buck equipping the 30%, regardless of their anatomy.

Heck, historically many armies had high restrictions for this very reason. Couldn't be too short or tall, because you wouldn't fit.

[Vector]

How is this different than for men, again?  Convince me.

Male armor 1 fits 30% of people, Female armor 1 fits 3% of people. I'm getting more bang for my buck equipping the 30%, regardless of their anatomy.

Heck, historically many armies had high restrictions for this very reason. Couldn't be too short or tall, because you wouldn't fit.

Do you mean 3% of people in the total army, or are you saying that female body types are so different that you'd need 33 different types of armor to equip the whole female population--as opposed to men, who have only 3 body types?

[scrdest]

The US armed forces of course have plenty of money to throw around, so there is no longer an issue of equipment either.

So in other words "tailoring" (insofar as making something roughly the right shape constitutes tailoring) body armour to women was judged to be worthwhile.  Doesn't this mean your argument about female body armour being insanely exotic and expensive is wrong?  The source in the Cracked argument correctly identified an issue that is now being fixed, and there's no need to try and defend the old status quo.

I can't see anyone defending status quo of pre-female armor. At worst people are explaining why it didn't happen earlier.

[Loud Whispers]

@Bauglir no probs

So in other words "tailoring" (insofar as making something roughly the right shape constitutes tailoring) body armour to women was judged to be worthwhile.  Doesn't this mean your argument about female body armour being insanely exotic and expensive is wrong?  The source in the Cracked argument correctly identified an issue that is now being fixed, and there's no need to try and defend the old status quo.

The Cracked article adressed an issue that was not an issue, because they are talking about it in 2014 when it was already undergoing live trials in 2012. There is no argument because there is nothing to argue. It's expensive; the Americans want female body armour, the Americans have the money and are using it to develop it. What's the fuss about?

[Max White]

Do you mean 3% of people in the total army, or are you saying that female body types are so different that you'd need 33 different types of armor to equip the whole female population--as opposed to men, who have only 3 body types?

3% of total people, otherwise I would have said 3% of women. Heck some of those people with Male Armor 1 may very well be women who just find the fit works for them, while some guys might be missing a good fit could be part of that 3% that Female Armor 1 would be acceptable for.

[Vector]

Okay, I misread your previous argument, then--I thought you meant that there was greater female body diversity than male body diversity, and confused myself.

[Max White]

Okay, I misread your previous argument, then--I thought you meant that there was greater female body diversity than male body diversity, and confused myself.

Well I'm under the impression this is also true, although there is no maths of science behind it, simply experience with clothes shopping, knowing that there are a lot more different fitting clothes for different female body types than male. Men have an easier time fitting into stuff because we don't have breasts to contend with. They tend to vary in size, and it is a logistical pain in the ass.