Bret Devereaux

Military and Milhist twitter - question! I am aware of the debate around risk compensation in automotive safety (meaning make the car safer, drivers speed up, 'consuming' the safety). Are there studies of this re: modern body armor?

I would think there has to be something out there that pushed the army from the IBA I wore on my first tour (Iraq) to the IOTV that I wore my second tour (AF) to the light plate carrier I wore the third tour (AF).

Many individual infantry units had unofficial SOPs to lighten their loads, especially the IOTV in Afghanistan to handle the terrain. I think what's most interesting is how developments in the field like this influenced "big army" decisions about equipment.

Off the top of my head I can think of shoulder pockets, light plate carriers, civilian hiking boots, and even the OCP camouflage pattern driven by unit driven changes that wound up affecting big army load out for people deploying, especially to Afghanistan

When I went in 2011/12 we took IOTVs and plate carriers with us. Gunners or drivers wore the IOTV and the gunner had to wear the shoulder protectors as well. The idea being they were more susceptible to blast injuries and not expected to move on foot

Another factor has to also be modern combat casualty care being better at keeping the average wounded soldier alive than ever before

That’s my 2 cents from personal experience. @Jaylikestohike was with me in 07/08 and served at even higher levels so he may have some knowledge on actual army studies on the subject

There was an effort between AWG and Peo Soldier back in 2010 called the Soldiers Load study. Scientific assessments were conducted and a unit from 4th ID in the Pech was chosen as the test bed. It proved lighter equipment= more effective Soldiers. Each SM was given