Army uses 'Xena: Warrior Princess' as inspiration for new body armor for women

Making body armor that better fits the bodies of female troops is a considerable engineering challenge. The Army is forging ahead with improvements after a decade of women serving on the front lines.

Julie Jacobson/AP/File
In this August 2009 file photo, US Marine Female Engagement Team members Lance Cpl. Mary Shloss (r.) of Hammond, Ind.; Sgt. Monica Perez (c.) of San Diego; and Cpl. Kelsey Rossetti of Derry, N.H.; wait for the signal to begin their patrol with Golf Company, 2nd Batallion, 3rd Regiment of the 2nd MEB, 2nd MEF in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan.

The US military is developing “Xena: Warrior Princess”-style body armor for women that it hopes will give them greater protection on the battlefield, with more curves in the chest and hips.

It is a considerable engineering challenge to make body armor that better fits the bodies of female troops, US military officials acknowledge, and such armor may be years in the making.

In the meantime, Army engineers are forging ahead with improvements that they hope will provide much-needed changes after a decade of women serving on the front lines of an unpredictable battlefield.

Much of the impetus to change the body armor came in 2009, when the female soldiers of the storied 101st Airborne Division deployed to war and had some concerns about the gear they had to use on a daily basis.

“It rubbed on the hips, and the vests were too long in the front, so that when you had female soldiers climbing stairs or climbing up a hill or a tree, or sitting for a long time in a vehicle, that would create pressure points that in some instances could impact blood flow and cause some discomfort,” says Lt. Col. Frank Lozano, who helps develop female body armor.

Ill-fitting body armor is “more than a matter of comfort,” according to a subsequent US Army study. “It affects combat effectiveness.”

The study found that the poor fit of the body armor on female soldiers “made it difficult for [them] to properly aim their weapons and enter or exit vehicles.”

And so the Army set about to see what it could do to improve the fit of body armor for women. “It became clear to us that there was a difference in torso length,” says Lozano, who is the product manager for the Army’s soldier protective-equipment program. “The other point that we realized is that there is a significant difference in shoulder width. I read this data, and it seems so obvious.”

The most important goal is to be able to “spread out the energy” when a bullet hits the body armor plates, says Douglas Graham, a spokesman for the Army’s Office of Soldier Protection and Individual Equipment.

“Some people would like to eventually make plates so it’s like ‘Xena: Warrior Princess’ and conforms to the shape” of female soldiers, he adds.

Yet there are engineering challenges. The more curves the plates have, the heavier they get. It also creates potential weaknesses in the armor, like creasing a paper, Lozano explains.

“There are some complex curvatures that come into play with female hard-armor plates,” he says. “I could make female hard armor, but it would be twice as heavy.” As a result, some of the Army’s developmental efforts involve “unique chemical designs” to create plates that are lighter and conform to different body shapes.

Currently, female soldiers have a choice of 11 male body-armor sizes.

Now, the Army is testing eight additional sizes made specifically for women, with, among other changes, more-narrow shoulders and “bra-shaped darting” in the chest.

Some 100 women of the 101st Airborne Division, who will soon be headed to Afghanistan, are testing them and have given positive early feedback. “They say, ‘I could wear this all day,’ ‘I could run a marathon in this,’ and ‘It feels much lighter,’ even though it really isn’t any lighter,” Lozano says.

Now, he adds, the challenge will be finding the money, in the midst of robust calls for cuts in defense spending, to mass-produce them.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.