To win a bottle of 22nd Special Air Service Champagne, visit Intelligent Armour website for competition details, rules and how to enter.
www.body-armour-protection.co.uk/IA-Competitions
Archive for 2011
Christmas Competition at Intelligent Armour
Friday, December 2nd, 2011Punch and Pull – Breaching Tool for Fortified Doors
Friday, December 2nd, 2011
The Punch and Pull entry tool may be the next evolutionary step in manual breaching kit. It may, in fact, relegate the hallagan (which a lot of folks incorrectly call a “hooligan”) to a much more secondary role.
“A lot of tactical guys are a little iffy at first,†says the Punch & Pull’s designer, “but once they try it and see how well it works they love it. A SWAT team should have more options on an entry than a hallagan, a ram and a damn big hammer.
Originally developed in 1996, the Punch & Pull was built by Rick Lopez, a 20+ year veteran of LAPD’s D Platoon (SWAT) and Narcotics Division for use on the fortified doors their narcotics officers were encountering on drug warrants and SWAT operations. Because it causes a lot less collateral damage (and doesn’t leave quite the same amount of wreckage) than other breaching equipment he describes it as more “brass friendlyâ€.
“Its actually pretty simple,†Lopez advises. “It’s usually a two man operation. The guy with the hammer spike sets the hole in the security door, the guy with the Punch & Pull, handling it like a weapon at port arms, comes in at 45 degrees and sets it. “BAM,” it comes open, opening up the inner door for the slam man [ram carrier].†The Punch & Pull remains hooked so it’s not in the way, lying underfoot or encumbering anyone during the immediate entry.
The spike is set by the doorknob to preset the Punch & Pull’s hold. It doesn’t break the deadbolt (most times you can barely bend a deadbolt), it tears the plate open. The plate is much more vulnerable than the rest of the mechanism. That’s what the Punch & Pull busts out. (Lopez prefers to do a door peal on the doorknob side at an angle to pop the door. It puts all the tension around the doorknob.
“You don’t want to hit the center of a door with it,†Lopez warns. “Some guys did that despite being trained not…that puts the torque on the hinges. They wound up with the door right on top of them when it came off.â€
Note: if the target door is more than moderately fortified (like if it’s strongly lagged), the Punch & Pull probably won’t work. “It’s popped some lagged doors before,†Lopez says, “however they were lightly lagged. That’s why proper surveillance and intel gathering is essential prior to ever making the approach. If it’s lagged heavily in the door frame or the floor using welded bolts, you’re going to need to do a vehicle pull.â€
The Punch & Pull is in use by a number of different agencies and units, including the LAPD, Ventura County SO, DEA, FBI and several municipal departments. Rick, who is a former grunt turned ANGLICO Marine, has also provided several to units at Camp Pendleton and taught them how to best employ it.
For more information, check out www.PunchandPull.com. You can also e-mail Rick at punchandpull@hotmail.com or call him at (562) 754-3214. He is on Pacific time.
Some video featuring door peels vs. door pulls, along with some training iterations with the Punch & Pull visit Youtube.
– DR
OR Pro Deal Program
Friday, December 2nd, 2011Outdoor Research has recently updated their Pro Purchase Program. It is open for applications and all federal, state and military personnel are eligible. Previous enrollees will need to reapply.
www.outdoorresearch.com/en/vip
Look What’s Coming in A-TACS FG
Thursday, December 1st, 2011Propper has ACUs in the A-TACS FG print on the way for Spring 2012.
Additionally, Beez Combat Systems, Grey Ghost and TAG will be producing armor carriers and pouches.
It’s important to remember that with the release of the A-TACS FG Camo pattern, the original A-TACS Camo pattern is now known as A-TACS AU (Arid/Urban) Camo.
Contact: Air, Land and Sea
Thursday, December 1st, 2011
The most recent edition of the Australian military magazine, Contact: Air, Land and Sea is out now. You can check it out online as a sample but please remember that it is a bit of a beast so loading may take some time. The December issue includes the cover article, “That First Patrol†which explores the stress associated with continuing with the mission even after a friend is injured by a mine or an IED. It also covers several New Zealand and Australian soldiers KIA in various locations (including the three killed by a supposedly friendly ANA soldier) and features the story “Dustoff: Flying with the medevac team in Afghanistan.â€
Hat Tip to Bolo Report for reminding me.
USAF EOD Beret Nixed
Thursday, December 1st, 2011
Recently, the USAF Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) careerfield (AFSC 3E8X1) asked for a distinctive beret. Specifically, they selected Tan, which as most of us know was chosen for wear by US Army Rangers after their Black beret was given to Big Army. Probably not the best choice of beret but it isn’t already an AF beret color. Additionally, they requested recognition of a distinctive flash featuring the Red Bomb emblem first used by EOD in World War Two.
In October their request was denied by Air Force leadership. Specifically, the Air Force’s top Civil Engineer, Maj Gen Timothy Byers rejected the idea and he was understandably supported by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen Norty Schwartz. In a statement to EOD, Byers stated, “Ultimately, their superior training, absolute professionalism, unwavering dedication and joint EOD badge are the hallmarks which definitely set them apart.”
Currently, several careerfields wear berets.
CCT/STO – Scarlet
PJ/CRO – Maroon
TACP/ALO – Black
Weather Parachutists – Grey
Security Force – Blue
SERE Techs – Sage Green
It’s really been a helter skelter smattering of who has a beret and who doesn’t with more and more added over the years. In some cases the beret is worn by actual combat oriented AFSCs and in others only by certain members of careerfields. Additionally, the entire AF Security Forces careerfield wears a beret. Berets have often been considered a mark of the elite (despite the US Army’s decision to institutionalize the Black beret for all Soldiers). When you look at the list, the Air Force’s policy really doesn’t make much sense. For instance Air Force parachutists in careerfields other than those above do not wear a beret (although in many joint billets they do in spite of AF uniform regs) while non-parachutists in some AFSCs do wear them.
This is why the decision to deny an EOD beret makes no sense and there has been much gnashing of teeth on the internet over EOD and why they do or do not rate a beret. There are non-combat AFSCs in the mix already so that argument doesn’t hold water. Granted, a beret does not make the man, but by that argument no one should be wearing them. EOD is being asked to go above and beyond the call and on a regular basis.
USAF Photo
This is the second setback for a careerfield that has recently had to align themselves more as a combat force, based on actual deployed taskings, than the institutional force they have traditionally been. Last year, EOD asked to be declared part of the Battlefield Airman community along with Combat Control, Guardian Angel (PJ/CRO/SERE), TACP, and Combat Weather. Their bid was unsuccessful although they got a partial win.
EOD now has an enhanced indoc course for candidates and they will be required to pass a new EOD-specific PAST (Physical Ability and Stamina Test) test. Additionally, they will now be equipped through the Battlefield Airman Management System, a menu based supply program which was created in 2004 to consolidate and standardize the fielding of personal equipment for those in the Battlefield Airman community.
Both of these decisions are indicative of an Air Force leadership that continues to look at the world as they wish it was rather than how it actually is. Ten years into our nation’s longest conflict, it’s as if the Corporate Air Force refuses to accept that we are actually at war. EOD is completing combat taskings, embedded with Army units and this reality has touched virtually every facet of EOD. While bomb ranges are still supported, EOD Airmen have to learn a whole new set of tasks to survive under fire and neutralize IEDs. Some of EOD’s issues may be that they are part of CE (Civil Engineering) and the CE leadership may well prefer to have their EOD troops pulling range support rather than deployed, dealing with IEDs in a war zone. Wishing won’t make it go away. But then again, where do you put them if not CE?
USAF Photo
An additional issue for EOD may well be that they do not have any career officers. CE officers attend EOD school and command a flight but due to the structure of EOD there are no Squadrons or Groups to command. Officers move on to other CE duties. Other careerfields have opened up to officers such as CRO and career ALO and they are seeing a new emphasis. Perhaps EOD could do with the same.
Don’t get me wrong, EOD enjoys special pays, generous bonuses (due to low manning), higher physical fitness requirements, and access to BAMS. But, with all of this, it seems like they’ve got all of the responsibility of being “special” and none of the recognition. Maybe they don’t need a beret, but like we said earlier, decisions by Air Force leadership regarding EOD seem to display a lack of acceptance of reality. The war is going on. If anything, the IED threat will only increase and there will be more demands on EOD.
2012 Magpul Calendars Now Available
Thursday, December 1st, 2011
This year’s calendar is once again a collaboration between Magpul Industries in the US and Edgar Brothers in the UK, with some special Magpul touches. As always the girls are outfitted in the latest Crye swimwear displaying some impressive weaponry. This year, half of the calendar proceeds will be going to the Infinite Hero Foundation.
Get yours at Magpul.com.
I’ve Got Better Things To Write About But…
Thursday, December 1st, 2011I’m going to briefly discuss this whole Dakota Meyer lawsuit with BAE that is all over the internet. I guess I have to say something since I received a slew of emails from readers with links to the story. I have read the news articles and I have to say that I will probably be a dissenting opinion because I’m not going to be vilifying anyone here. These are just the facts as I see them and facts, we all are short of.
First off, I need you to do something for me. This issue isn’t about Dakota Meyer, Medal Of Honor recipient. This is about Dakota Meyer, the guy. And once you take the MoH out of the equation, this isn’t even news. He didn’t work for BAE when he was a MoH Recipient so it isn’t even an issue. He didn’t even receive the award until September. All of this went down prior to his award.
I willingly admit that I know Bobby McReight and while we aren’t BFFs he has always been a straight shooter and a level headed guy to me. I haven’t seen any actual statements by Mr McReight yet, just hearsay. Dakota Meyer, I don’t know. I hear he is a great guy, from a lot of people. Not sure if any of them actually know him tho.
The issue is actually with OASYS, a business unit of BAE. They manufacture Thermal Sights and we have written several times about them. The US military has purchased thousands of these scopes for use in identifying IEDs. This isn’t any special new high-tech here that our troops don’t have. It’s hard for me to get upset with OASYS for having the audacity to build a better mousetrap. The current standard issue thermal sight, the PAS-13, dates from the mid-90s. It’s big, eats batteries, and is heavy. On the other hand, the OASYS SkeetIR and UTM are a fraction of the weight, size and cost. But at 15 years on, they should be.
I’m not even going to bother with the ethical issue of demonstrating these thermal sights to Pakistan. Despite things you are reading on the internet, all BAE did was ask for a marketing license to temporarily export (ie take into and bring out of Pakistan) the sights. They haven’t sold anything yet. In fact, selling anything to a foreign government is a long arduous process and usually the sale never even happens.
I am a little perplexed by the content of one of the emails used in the lawsuit. According to CNN.com, Meyer wrote to his supervisor, “I think that one of the most disturbing facts to the whole thing is that we are still going forth with the PAS-13 optic and issuing these outdated sub-par optics to our own U.S. troops when we have better optics we can put in their hands right now, but we are willing to sell it to Pakistan.” While we don’t have the entire email to put this statement into context, it seems as if Meyer doesn’t realize that the PAS-13 is built by BAE’s competitor Raytheon or that the US has already fielded OASYS systems.
Additionally, the (non)hiring story we are hearing in the news makes ZERO sense. According to a Foxnews report, Meyer left Ausgar to go to work for OASYS. When his relationship with OASYS (BAE) soured he tried to go to work back at Ausgar but they wouldn’t hire him because of statements by BAE.
Anyone else who’s ever held a job in the commercial sector see any red flags here? Seriously? They didn’t hire him because the company that he just left said something bad about him? And then, they told Meyer what they said about him and that it was their reason for not rehiring him? And on top of that, they included it in an email? It’s an unwritten ethical rule that you NEVER share comments about a prospective employee made during background checks. Way to go Ausgar for violating trust. Not only that, but don’t you take another company’s comments with a grain of salt? Sounds like Meyer’s issue is with Ausgar and not BAE. They made the decision not to rehire him. Whether or not the decision was made based on bad info, the decision was theirs which begs the question. Is there some other reason they didn’t rehire him?
We’re only hearing Dakota Meyer’s side of this story. Remember, this is a lawsuit. No one has presented BAE’s side of it and it’s really hard to determine the truth with a single point of view. Although I don’t believe Dakota Meyer brought this issue to the national stage, someone did. Someone who has an agenda. You’ve got to figure out what that agenda is. And, I’ll have to say, since this is a lawsuit, at this point, Dakota Meyer is certainly benefiting from all of the press. BAE? Not so much.
And one final issue. Dakota Meyer the MoH recipient is having zero trouble finding employment. In fact, we’ve even featured him on these very pages. He ain’t starving, so whatever went down, it hasn’t wrecked his life. I certainly hope that those things weren’t said about him if they aren’t true and I hope he deals with whatever happened, but it’s hard from me to feel any sympathy here considering the facts we have seen so far.
I think this is a great place for me to stop and let you guys discuss this amongst yourselves. I don’t have a stake in it one way or the other, so have at it. Just please, don’t make stuff up. Links to external sites with facts are great.
