PFC Cheryl Rogers grins as 2LT Chelsea Adams helps her into the new Generation III Female Improved Outer Tactical Vest. The Soldiers, who are part of the 1st ABCT Female Engagement Team, Third Infantry Division, are preparing to deploy to Afghanistan and will be only the second group in the US Army to test this new body armor. Photo – US Army
The female fit variant of the US Army issue Gen III Improved Outer Tactical Best began in 2009 after the 101st identified fit issues with the Gen II IOTV for their female Soldiers.
“When I was with the 101st in Afghanistan, I raised the issue there that we had female Soldiers going outside the wire on a routine basis and their equipment was just too large for them to operate and correctly pocket their weapon in,” said MSG Jeff Fenlason. “Because the problems were directly affecting the ability of these women to operate efficiently in combat, the Army began looking for ways to improve the vests.”
During the initial push for a better vest, the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center initiated multiple surveys and found that about 85 percent of women in the Army were wearing a vest one size too large and about 52 percent were wearing a vest about two sizes too large.
“Over the course of a couple years, NSRDEC worked through a couple design changes, and what we put the 1st ABCT FET team in is the result of all that work,” explained MSG Fenlason, who is now operating as a plans noncommissioned officer for 1st ABCT.
According to an Army press release, this version of the IOTV is designed to curve with the female anatomy, and the parts come in multiple sizes to custom fit to each woman, unlike the one-size-fits-all Gen II model.
The Army plans to field 3,000 of these models by the summer of 2013.
Not a fan of this. DoD/MoDs issue things in too small and too large as the idiom goes. Maybe if they got proper sizing it would be good, my IOTV is supposed to be for me, I have a 44inch chest…but I should actually have a medium based on the actual sizing ofr the damn thing.
Nice Rack Aaron. What cup size is that?
Yeah, IOTV sizing is whack, and calculated by actuaries not warriors.
The contracted “expert” who sized me did one hitch during the Reagan era, and didn’t look like he could walk a lap on a 1/4 mile track in a light coat of oil. When my CoC told him that we were sizing for wear with packs, war belts and safe operation of vehicles (you know, being able to turn your freakin’head), he packed his crap and walked, warning us about how much trouble we were gonna get into. 5 day dustup, threats of relief for cause, punishment trips to the gas chamber (no big deal) and the land nav course (which seemed to have been freshly stocked with deer ticks) “because our cert had expired” and a new guy showed up who sized us better.
Whoa Straps, I thought you said that you didn’t wear the IOTV? Yeah I’m pretty sure that’s what you said in that BAE post. Yeah, I believe your exact words were:
“Oh, and I don’t wear IOTV either, in favor of a more widely preferred BAE product called the RBAV-SF…”
So which is it scooter?
Maybe you should just go back to your POG desk and seek solace in your video games and delusions of grandeur.
You must be a troll.
What is the benefit of this, given that the plates are still standard ESAPIs?
The benefit is that they fit.
Please allow me to rephrase my question. How do they fit better, do these vests have longer tightening straps/shorter cumberbunds, looser at the shoulders for more chest room/breathability? Are these modifications unique to female specific body armor, or do these modifications have utility for the rest of the force as well (exceptionally tall, short, broad, ect.)?
Ultimately, the additional sized components should improve the fit for the overall force. However, IOTVs are managed as end items rather than components so the ability to mix and match different sized components is thus far lost.
why are they still on the IOTV?
Sounds like the carrier has extra room for “excuses and complaints”. If you cant stand when you pee, you don’t belong in the infantry.
Too bad everyone’s not Infantry.
I just wonder why the dichotomy is between “lower physical training standards so women can feel included” and “every single woman on earth is automatically a pathetic, despicable whiner who knows she belongs behind the stove.” How about we make sure our training is based on the job that needs to be done, and if you can hack it you get the job, and if you can’t complete the training, you don’t get in? Sure, it would challenge people’s psychological complexes on either side, but at least it would be the one option that’s based on reality…
I have no idea what your statement has to do with sex-specific body armor fitting.
But yeah, the military would be simpler if for every female looking for the opportunity to serve had to compete with 10 males who HADN’T DQ’d themselves on ethical, moral, criminal, financial or substance abuse grounds, or weren’t too freakin’ fat to even ship.
But they don’t. And yeah, we were waiving these guys for a few years (in restricted MOSs), and are just now getting beyond the issues they brought into the ranks (drug use, barracks thievery, disgrace of the uniform in ways rarely seen since Viet Nam).
Soldiers come VOLUNTARILY from the general population, which is in a pretty pathetic state–ESPECIALLY on the male side.
Sorry, was replying to Jay and got a bit off-topic. :/
But yes, I agree with you.
I love the fuckers who feel the need to weigh in when something doesn’t concern them at all. Are you a split tail? No? Then you won’t be wearing one of these so it doesn’t concern you. Here’s your cup of “shut the fuck up.”
Only a woman hating homo or a muslim would go out of his way to talk shit about women.
I know some dudes rocking some C-cup moobs who should be fitted for these.
Female peace officers have been getting soft armor which takes their anatomy into consideration (albeit some better than others) for many years now. For the female troops who are deployed / deploying this should be a good thing.
We had a female dog handler who rolled quite regularly with our company back in ’05. Yup, not Infantry but she was out with us when a fair number of “guys” were home on their couches.
Females have been serving overseas in Afghanistan in the Canadian Forces since we first rolled in there in 2003.
It Canada, the ladies serve in the infantry, combat engineers, combat medics, artillery, armoured, you name it. It just really ISN’T A BIG DEAL.
The had to pass the Battle Fitness Test (BFT) and Beep Test (Shuttle Run) to the same standard as the guys before deployment overseas.
For those of you who enjoy reading and have an open mind, I HIGHLY suggest reading this article by the Canadian Army Journal called “Gender Integration and Modern Military Forces: A Comparative Analysis”.
It does a really good job of comparing the difference experiences and approaches the US Military and the Canadian Forces have when it comes to gender integration.
Again, warning, lots of big words.
-Alex
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_13/iss_2/CAJ_vol13.2_10_e.pdf
Forgot the Link.